Discussion
I went oop North yesterday, and it made me sick to see gatsos on perfectly safe roads, A1, A14. What on earth is going on there? Nice roads, and fairly good standard of driving.
On 3 occasions the roads ground to a 10mph crawl - why? because some numpty spotted the cameras at the last second, and caused a bloody "ripple" effect !!!
So to recap, nearly 3 major accidents - because of Gatso infestation.
The "speed kills" brigade need to be given a good kicking.
Carl
On 3 occasions the roads ground to a 10mph crawl - why? because some numpty spotted the cameras at the last second, and caused a bloody "ripple" effect !!!
So to recap, nearly 3 major accidents - because of Gatso infestation.
The "speed kills" brigade need to be given a good kicking.
Carl
quote:
I went oop North yesterday, and it made me sick to see gatsos on perfectly safe roads, A1, A14. What on earth is going on there? Nice roads, and fairly good standard of driving.
On 3 occasions the roads ground to a 10mph crawl - why? because some numpty spotted the cameras at the last second, and caused a bloody "ripple" effect !!!
So to recap, nearly 3 major accidents - because of Gatso infestation.
The "speed kills" brigade need to be given a good kicking.
Carl
Keep telling it as it is Carl we will get through in the end.
looked ok for 70mph to me, but maybe when I pull onto a main road, I use max revs to get to road speed ASAP, unlike a lot of the general public who would prefer to save 10p of petrol !
And returning south, there was a bit with no side roads, immediately after a roundabout where the despicable machines were sited. No justification for that one whatsoever, apart from stinging the public.
C
And returning south, there was a bit with no side roads, immediately after a roundabout where the despicable machines were sited. No justification for that one whatsoever, apart from stinging the public.
C
If you are talking about the stretch of the A1 adjacent to Elkesley (just North of Newark) the 50mph limit and cameras were put in place after a number of fatal RTAs.
I think the problem is that the only access to the village is via the A1, so everything from buses to old biddies on (even older) pedal bikes has to either join or cross a road with (near?) motorway speeds.
ISTR that the accident rate has not really dropped, though I could be completely wrong.
Seems to me that the sensible solution would be to put a totally new road into the village, and block access to the A1. But where would be the profit (and anti-speed propoganda) be in that?
Cheers, Phil
I think the problem is that the only access to the village is via the A1, so everything from buses to old biddies on (even older) pedal bikes has to either join or cross a road with (near?) motorway speeds.
ISTR that the accident rate has not really dropped, though I could be completely wrong.
Seems to me that the sensible solution would be to put a totally new road into the village, and block access to the A1. But where would be the profit (and anti-speed propoganda) be in that?
Cheers, Phil
quote:
Seems to me that the sensible solution would be to put a totally new road into the village, and block access to the A1. But where would be the profit (and anti-speed propoganda) be in that?
Ac-chully, they've done some of this on the A1 between the A505 at Baldock at the A14. At least a couple of junctions have been improved with the addition of bridges over the A1 and proper on/off ramps, instead of the old junctions which forced you to try and cross the A1. The Eltisley, er, I mean Edworth (Edit), junction used to be a laugh a minute...
>> Edited by Marshy on Thursday 4th April 01:01
Why is it that when a couple of fatal RTAs happen this is seen as an excuse for some action? In particular the solution seems to always be a reduction in speed limits or additional traffic lights. There never seems to be any analysis of the accidents which concludes "these people killed themselves through poor driving". This would lead to the conclusion that no action needs to be taken.
A classic example of this is the cat and fiddle road. 6 Bikers were killed at Easter 2 years ago. Consequence, shed loads 50 signs and a lot of police helicopters, achieving absolutely nothing and costing the earth. The platitudes will go on for ever from those who don't understand, The reality is that driving quickly is important to those who do it well. Everything that happens in between is just waiting, for the next time. The blue rinse brigade have no right to take these experiences away from us.
A classic example of this is the cat and fiddle road. 6 Bikers were killed at Easter 2 years ago. Consequence, shed loads 50 signs and a lot of police helicopters, achieving absolutely nothing and costing the earth. The platitudes will go on for ever from those who don't understand, The reality is that driving quickly is important to those who do it well. Everything that happens in between is just waiting, for the next time. The blue rinse brigade have no right to take these experiences away from us.
quote:
Why is it that when a couple of fatal RTAs happen this is seen as an excuse for some action? In particular the solution seems to always be a reduction in speed limits or additional traffic lights. There never seems to be any analysis of the accidents which concludes "these people killed themselves through poor driving". This would lead to the conclusion that no action needs to be taken.
A classic example of this is the cat and fiddle road. 6 Bikers were killed at Easter 2 years ago. Consequence, shed loads 50 signs and a lot of police helicopters, achieving absolutely nothing and costing the earth. The platitudes will go on for ever from those who don't understand, The reality is that driving quickly is important to those who do it well. Everything that happens in between is just waiting, for the next time. The blue rinse brigade have no right to take these experiences away from us.
Good question. Lowering speed limits is usually the quick fix and in the short term may help. Having said that, I've also started to notice that better road markings and warnings are becoming more evident, the Cat and Fiddle is a good example. If people knew how to interpret signposts there may be a reduction in accidents, god knows they don't look much further ahead than the next bend and so need all the help they can get...
Everybody knows the 'only a fool breaks the 2 second rule' rhyme. What about, 'the more they spend, the worse the bend'
>> Edited by relaxitscool on Friday 29th March 20:20
quote:
Everybody knows the 'only a fool breaks the 2 second rule' rhyme.
I'm staggered at the number of motorway drivers who don't even pay lip service to this. I can't believe half the people thrashing along in their rep-mobiles have the slightest idea how long it takes to stop from 80. From my experience, in ideal conditions it would take around four seconds to come to a complete stop from 80, the skid marks would be the length of the 'two second gap'. Obviously there is also reaction time to be taken into account, and conditions are rarely perfect. Anyway the point is that a two second gap is enough to give you a fighting chance of stopping as long as the guy in front is only braking at -1G rather than for example running into the back of a pileup. So it really annoys me when I'm leaving a scant two second gap and starting to feel nervous about stopping distances, and somebody pulls in front leaving me half a second or so. It is possible to drive perfectly safely at those speeds, but these people manage to make it dangerous and put *me* at risk while they're about it. Makes it very hard for me to argue that motorway speed limits should be increased - I think they should be, it isn't the speed that makes motorways dangerous it's the dangerous driving habits. 'Unsafe at any speed' sums it up nicely. But if you're going to cause an accident, the slower you're going the less it's going to hurt when it happens?
>So it really annoys me when I'm leaving a scant
>two second gap and starting to feel nervous about stopping >distances, and somebody pulls in front leaving me half a second >or so.
This annoys me too, in that I also perceive it to be an unsafe
practice, but in reality motorways are the UK's safest roads.
>But if you're going to cause an accident, the slower
>you're going the less it's going to hurt when it happens?
True but modern cars are very safe.
Decades of idiots driving Volvoes, BMW 3 series and
assorted 4x4 have ensured that motorway crashes are mostly
ones you will almost certainly walk away from.
I think the ABD estimate the saving of upping
the motorway speed limit from 70 mph to 80 mph at about
500 million quid, which I'm sure would pay for a lot of
schools, hospitals, coppers & other things the Oxford Lawyer
at number Ten keeps banging on about.
>two second gap and starting to feel nervous about stopping >distances, and somebody pulls in front leaving me half a second >or so.
This annoys me too, in that I also perceive it to be an unsafe
practice, but in reality motorways are the UK's safest roads.
>But if you're going to cause an accident, the slower
>you're going the less it's going to hurt when it happens?
True but modern cars are very safe.
Decades of idiots driving Volvoes, BMW 3 series and
assorted 4x4 have ensured that motorway crashes are mostly
ones you will almost certainly walk away from.
I think the ABD estimate the saving of upping
the motorway speed limit from 70 mph to 80 mph at about
500 million quid, which I'm sure would pay for a lot of
schools, hospitals, coppers & other things the Oxford Lawyer
at number Ten keeps banging on about.
quote:
From my experience, in ideal conditions it would take around four seconds to come to a complete stop from 80
Pretty good guess I'd say. See link below for Tuscan (and others) 0-100-0 times. www.warrender.co.uk/afc_0013.htm
quote:
Everybody knows the 'only a fool breaks the 2 second rule' rhyme.
Back in the seventies there were lots of pragmatic public information road safety ads. They warned of such things as driver fatigue and ignoring the two second rule. There was a particularly nasty one alerting drivers to the dangers of misinterpreting lorry road positioning for turning manoeuvres. Nowadays revitalising shampoo and anti-ageing cream take precedence unless it's an anti-speed campaign or Xmas drink drive blitz.
There was a recent Specsavers (?) ad showing a chap almost running a red light due to poor vision. I thought that had a major impact in the light of recent reports suggesting that 1 in 10 motorists drive with uncorrected defective vision. If you can't see speed limit warning signs (or read your own speedo) what use is a Gatso? Without good eyesight (or properly corrected vision) all other driving skills are wasted.
>> Edited by Deadly Dog on Wednesday 3rd April 11:39
quote:
Everybody knows the 'only a fool breaks the 2 second rule' rhyme. What about, 'the more they spend, the worse the bend'
Very true but we could do with some consistency, there are some parts of the country I've driven where if you see a warning triangle for a bend or (heaven forbid) a chevron or two you take it VERY seriously 'cos they don'y throw their money around lightly. In other places you have huge "Maximum Speed 30" signs and when you get to the other side you think "was that it?"
quote:
nonegreen
"The reality is that driving quickly is important to those who do it well. Everything that happens in between is just waiting, for the next time. "
Fantastic........when I'm campaigning for something, will you be on the other side please
Ta
What are you campaigning for?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff