An epidemic of insanely slow drivers
Discussion
M4cruiser said:
That last bit is the most relevant. "assuming road speed was motorway velocity)."
I've also heard from police drivers that 300 yard marker is latest where you signal. But then I thought about it, that would be for police drivers on blue lights, still doing 120mph in lane 3 at that point.
For the rest of us, especially if already in lane 1 and trundling along at 55mph behind an LGV, what's the point in signalling left for 12 seconds. Yet you do see some doing this. Even worse, if in a stationary queue, signalling left for 10 minutes.
I take a deeper thinking view. If there's another lorry on my tail, then I try to work out which way the lorry is going. If he's taking the same exit as me then I signal just after the 100 yard marker. But if he's staying on the motorway then I don't signal! Because as soon as I do he will step on the gas and almost nudge me out of the way.
Like most things in driving, you can apply common sense for safety reasons, unless it's mandated in law. The 300 yards isn't mandated.
Rospa says 300 yards too: https://www.rospa.com/road-safety/advice-and-infor... . Yes they're not the law either...I've also heard from police drivers that 300 yard marker is latest where you signal. But then I thought about it, that would be for police drivers on blue lights, still doing 120mph in lane 3 at that point.
For the rest of us, especially if already in lane 1 and trundling along at 55mph behind an LGV, what's the point in signalling left for 12 seconds. Yet you do see some doing this. Even worse, if in a stationary queue, signalling left for 10 minutes.
I take a deeper thinking view. If there's another lorry on my tail, then I try to work out which way the lorry is going. If he's taking the same exit as me then I signal just after the 100 yard marker. But if he's staying on the motorway then I don't signal! Because as soon as I do he will step on the gas and almost nudge me out of the way.
Like most things in driving, you can apply common sense for safety reasons, unless it's mandated in law. The 300 yards isn't mandated.
Similar guidance in continental countries - meters but not yards min you - it's not that hard.
Red Devil said:
The IOM is not, and never has been, part of the United Kingdom. Like Jersey and Guernsey it is a self-governing Crown Dependency with its own Parliament (the Tynwald), government and laws. That explains why there is no equivalent of the UK NSL on the island: the Diagram 671 sign means the road is derestricted. Just like it was in the UK prior to 1965.
Just imagine the mayhem, death and destruction if that freedom was allowed in the UK 
Speed kills - Kill your speed...
bigothunter said:
Red Devil said:
The IOM is not, and never has been, part of the United Kingdom. Like Jersey and Guernsey it is a self-governing Crown Dependency with its own Parliament (the Tynwald), government and laws. That explains why there is no equivalent of the UK NSL on the island: the Diagram 671 sign means the road is derestricted. Just like it was in the UK prior to 1965.
Just imagine the mayhem, death and destruction if that freedom was allowed in the UK Speed kills - Kill your speed...
The only speed that does not kill, would be zero mph. Then where would we be? What use would any movable vehicle from a bicycle to a fighter jet be?
Speed does NOT, kill. Every day, millions of people travel at speeds varying between one mph, and, several thousand mph, and they are not killed. Which give the lie to the appalling politicians sound bite, that speed kills. One could just as equally say that skill saves, regardless of what speed is involved.
Pan Pan Pan said:
bigothunter said:
Red Devil said:
The IOM is not, and never has been, part of the United Kingdom. Like Jersey and Guernsey it is a self-governing Crown Dependency with its own Parliament (the Tynwald), government and laws. That explains why there is no equivalent of the UK NSL on the island: the Diagram 671 sign means the road is derestricted. Just like it was in the UK prior to 1965.
Just imagine the mayhem, death and destruction if that freedom was allowed in the UK Speed kills - Kill your speed...
The only speed that does not kill, would be zero mph. Then where would we be? What use would any movable vehicle from a bicycle to a fighter jet be?
Speed does NOT, kill. Every day, millions of people travel at speeds varying between one mph, and, several thousand mph, and they are not killed. Which give the lie to the appalling politicians sound bite, that speed kills. One could just as equally say that skill saves, regardless of what speed is involved.
Returned last night around 11pm from Lancing on A27/A23. As often, had my large 3500kg race transporter trailer behind. When towing, I cruise about 10mph faster than the trucks. Surprising to see so many cars travelling much faster, many at 90 to 100mph. As usual, there were no incidents. Good to see cars used as intended.
However there was a serious point to my comment 'Just imagine the mayhem, death and destruction if that freedom (of unlimited roads) was allowed in the UK'.
Unlimited roads work safely in Germany and Isle of Man because their national populations have grown up with them - it's part of their culture. High speeds and the corresponding high standards are expected and achieved. This freedom would not work in the UK because we have been dumbed down over a period of almost 60 years. The majority of UK drivers could not cope with even 80mph. As motorists, we have been conditioned to be numpties.
This trend is destined to become considerably worse
It's interesting actually in France on the toll roads I wanted to get my value for money and cruised at the limit of 82mph or so, but a lot of natives on the road were going 60 when they could be going faster.
I'm not sure what it is about the motorways here that makes everyone want to barge through.
I'm not sure what it is about the motorways here that makes everyone want to barge through.
bigothunter said:
Yes of course
Returned last night around 11pm from Lancing on A27/A23. As often, had my large 3500kg race transporter trailer behind. When towing, I cruise about 10mph faster than the trucks. Surprising to see so many cars travelling much faster, many at 90 to 100mph. As usual, there were no incidents. Good to see cars used as intended.
However there was a serious point to my comment 'Just imagine the mayhem, death and destruction if that freedom (of unlimited roads) was allowed in the UK'.
Unlimited roads work safely in Germany and Isle of Man because their national populations have grown up with them - it's part of their culture. High speeds and the corresponding high standards are expected and achieved. This freedom would not work in the UK because we have been dumbed down over a period of almost 60 years. The majority of UK drivers could not cope with even 80mph. As motorists, we have been conditioned to be numpties.
This trend is destined to become considerably worse
Do they work in Germany, considering their worse KSI statistics compared to U.K. ?Returned last night around 11pm from Lancing on A27/A23. As often, had my large 3500kg race transporter trailer behind. When towing, I cruise about 10mph faster than the trucks. Surprising to see so many cars travelling much faster, many at 90 to 100mph. As usual, there were no incidents. Good to see cars used as intended.
However there was a serious point to my comment 'Just imagine the mayhem, death and destruction if that freedom (of unlimited roads) was allowed in the UK'.
Unlimited roads work safely in Germany and Isle of Man because their national populations have grown up with them - it's part of their culture. High speeds and the corresponding high standards are expected and achieved. This freedom would not work in the UK because we have been dumbed down over a period of almost 60 years. The majority of UK drivers could not cope with even 80mph. As motorists, we have been conditioned to be numpties.
This trend is destined to become considerably worse
Pica-Pica said:
Do they work in Germany, considering their worse KSI statistics compared to U.K. ?
Deaths per 1.0 billion vehicle-km: UK 3.8 compared to Germany 4.2 so worse by 11%. Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by...Both are amongst the safest roads in the world. Best is Norway at 3.0 deaths per 1.0 billion vehicle-km.
Highly speed controlled United States has 8.3 deaths per 1.0 billion vehicle-km.
So not a good case for limiting autobahn speeds.
There are reasons for autobahn's good safety record: https://www.businessinsider.com/germanys-autobahn-...
HTP99 said:
I-am-the-reverend said:
.....and I never, ever push the button at crossings. Why the f
k should a train of cars stop for me?
I wait my turn, let them go and cross when safe. It's simple courtesy, surely?
My late dad, a retired Policeman, always had an issue with pedestrian crossings for that same reason, he always said they were woefully inefficient due to a train of cars from both sides having to stop for sometimes just 1 person to cross, he much preffered the idea of small bridges for pedestrians, meaning no reason for cars to stop and to keep the flow of traffic going, he knew it would never happen though. k should a train of cars stop for me?I wait my turn, let them go and cross when safe. It's simple courtesy, surely?
fourthpedal said:
DonkeyApple said:
I don't think we can blame the pedestrian though. They don't know that a gap will appear when they get to the crossing so must press the button. And of course, should a gap appear they have no ability to cancel their request.
What, instead, is that one would expect new crossings to have more intelligent systems that will bring forward their change when they detect a suitable gap as well as cancel their change if there is no one waiting.
Indeed - the pedestrians are not to blame. The ridiculous timings on most pedestrian crossings are a very significant factor here too - of course pedestrians are going to look for gaps if they have to wait up to 5 minutes (I've timed a few) - and there's some good research backing that claim up: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/... . Some countries paid attention to that research and have tweaked timings to match, some haven't.What, instead, is that one would expect new crossings to have more intelligent systems that will bring forward their change when they detect a suitable gap as well as cancel their change if there is no one waiting.
Whilst there is traffic, in a constant stream, it will not stop the traffic for at least 1 minute, because the cars might have to brake sharply, instead the crossing was looking for a gap in the traffic longer than the time it took for most the pedestrians to have crossed. Thus stopping the next stream of traffic, with nobody on the crossing.
Pit Pony said:
I once made a complaint about the timings on a crossing that I used daily, and they actually got bavk to me to explain the problem. Regulations see...it turned out that the logic was something like.
Whilst there is traffic, in a constant stream, it will not stop the traffic for at least 1 minute, because the cars might have to brake sharply, instead the crossing was looking for a gap in the traffic longer than the time it took for most the pedestrians to have crossed. Thus stopping the next stream of traffic, with nobody on the crossing.
This completely explains the behaviour of the lights on the local high street. Most times of the day there is a constant stream if traffic up the high street. It's part of a one way system which is mainly fed by one of the few major river crossings in the area. Eventually someone wants to park in a space and stops to reverse in, or maybe let someone out to use their space. Any pedestrians waiting at the crossing lights wander across despite no green man and even the slowest have crossed by the time the traffic now arrives at the red light the duration of which would seem appropriate for a hundred year old 3 legged tortoise.Whilst there is traffic, in a constant stream, it will not stop the traffic for at least 1 minute, because the cars might have to brake sharply, instead the crossing was looking for a gap in the traffic longer than the time it took for most the pedestrians to have crossed. Thus stopping the next stream of traffic, with nobody on the crossing.
Talking about pedestrian crossings - there’s a new trend on junctions that all the cars stop to let people cross diagonally.
So instead of people crossing when the cars are stopped on in the normal signal routine they have to wait till all the roads are stopped, and tbh nobody does so you have to sit through a an extra long cycle of so it covers someone who might want to traverse diagonally.
(Damn that was a hard post to write without using cross/crossing multiple times)
So instead of people crossing when the cars are stopped on in the normal signal routine they have to wait till all the roads are stopped, and tbh nobody does so you have to sit through a an extra long cycle of so it covers someone who might want to traverse diagonally.
(Damn that was a hard post to write without using cross/crossing multiple times)
bigothunter said:
Pica-Pica said:
Do they work in Germany, considering their worse KSI statistics compared to U.K. ?
Deaths per 1.0 billion vehicle-km: UK 3.8 compared to Germany 4.2 so worse by 11%. Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by...Both are amongst the safest roads in the world. Best is Norway at 3.0 deaths per 1.0 billion vehicle-km.
Highly speed controlled United States has 8.3 deaths per 1.0 billion vehicle-km.
So not a good case for limiting autobahn speeds.
There are reasons for autobahn's good safety record: https://www.businessinsider.com/germanys-autobahn-...
The Selfish Gene said:
I believe it was Chelsmford road - past the pub on the left towards the A12 roundabout!
Ahhh, Brook Street maybe with the Aston dealer on the left?I worked nearby 15 years ago and very few obeyed the 30limit, so there used to be regular speed traps heading into town, seems things have changed a lot there now!
Just followed a 15 year old Qashqai. It was a heap, literally shed condition. In the rear window was a sticker stating the following:
“sorry for my low speed, black box fitted”.
She wasn’t wrong either - literally refused to accelerate at all - out of junctions, onto roundabouts….even about a 10s delay to get moving after the lights turned green.
Do insurance companies really believe (like their customers) that slow = safe??!
That needs banning.
“sorry for my low speed, black box fitted”.
She wasn’t wrong either - literally refused to accelerate at all - out of junctions, onto roundabouts….even about a 10s delay to get moving after the lights turned green.
Do insurance companies really believe (like their customers) that slow = safe??!
That
needs banning. i got brake checked by a civic (well i think it was just a terrible slow scared driver) on my mtn bike coming down a slightly windy 11% hill, wide enough for 2 cars, NSL, yesterday morning.
utter fool then proceeded to go over a single lane bridge a few hundred yards later and then had to reverse (eventually managed it) up as someone was already coming over and despite excellent sightlines before getting to the hump hadn't realized/judged bothered to look. i didnt catch up in time to see the driver just the reversing shenanigan's.
I then had someone, who shall we say probably gained there license on another continent, pull out in front of me from a junction and cross the road, as i was doing about 13 mph on a completely open and well sighted road, causing me to slam the anchors on and nearly lose the rear wheel in the 'lovely' and oh so 'pleasant' town of ingatestone.
utter fool then proceeded to go over a single lane bridge a few hundred yards later and then had to reverse (eventually managed it) up as someone was already coming over and despite excellent sightlines before getting to the hump hadn't realized/judged bothered to look. i didnt catch up in time to see the driver just the reversing shenanigan's.
I then had someone, who shall we say probably gained there license on another continent, pull out in front of me from a junction and cross the road, as i was doing about 13 mph on a completely open and well sighted road, causing me to slam the anchors on and nearly lose the rear wheel in the 'lovely' and oh so 'pleasant' town of ingatestone.
SpaceshipEarth said:
Just followed a 15 year old Qashqai. It was a heap, literally shed condition. In the rear window was a sticker stating the following:
“sorry for my low speed, black box fitted”.
She wasn’t wrong either - literally refused to accelerate at all - out of junctions, onto roundabouts….even about a 10s delay to get moving after the lights turned green.
Do insurance companies really believe (like their customers) that slow = safe??!
That needs banning.
Yep, black boxes are an absolute curse. They only have simple accelerometers and simple GPS to log speed, so all they measure is how fast you accelerate, how hard you corner and how hard you brake (oh and speed of course). Do any of these too much or too sharply and its a black mark on your copybook. No context at all. Brake hard to avoid a child running into the road, black mark. Swerve to avoid an idiot pulling out without looking, black mark. Accelerate away from the lights, black mark. As for speed, exceed the limit by a small margin too many times and bang, insurance cancelled. Oh, and misreporting is also a problem. Go over a speedbump and it can trigger as acceleration or braking (good job that speedbumps are few and far between eh). “sorry for my low speed, black box fitted”.
She wasn’t wrong either - literally refused to accelerate at all - out of junctions, onto roundabouts….even about a 10s delay to get moving after the lights turned green.
Do insurance companies really believe (like their customers) that slow = safe??!
That
needs banning. My daughter had a black box once (never again) and reading the reviews, unfortunately after the fact, reported many issues for drivers. One chap had an issue with the glue holding the black box in place failing and the box falling off, this got reported by the system as a crash. The glue turned out to be a faulty batch but still the insurance company decided that it was the responsibility of the driver to pay for a replacement black box or face having the insurance cancelled.
MKnight702 said:
Yep, black boxes are an absolute curse. They only have simple accelerometers and simple GPS to log speed, so all they measure is how fast you accelerate, how hard you corner and how hard you brake (oh and speed of course). Do any of these too much or too sharply and its a black mark on your copybook. No context at all. Brake hard to avoid a child running into the road, black mark. Swerve to avoid an idiot pulling out without looking, black mark. Accelerate away from the lights, black mark.
Would you say that people who end up taking evasive manoeuvres such as hard braking to avoid children or swerving to avoid idiots significantly more often than average are likely to be unlucky, or just crap drivers? Or, even setting aside harsh judgements about their ability to anticipate and mitigate hazards, do you think they are more or less likely than average to end up making a claim?Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff