Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
 
Old 04 July 2007, 16:58   #21
Member
 
Country: Other
Town: Oakley
Boat name: Zerstörer
Make: Ribcraft
Length: 5m +
Engine: Suzuki DF 140
MMSI: 235050131
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 3,931
Sorry folks,

But I see countless idiots speeding. I see people weaving in and out of traffic on Motorways and I see people overtaking on A and B roads recklessly through the use of speed.

Because this and previous governments have left our roads in a 1940s state we just don't have roads capable of taking high speed cars.

Another thing I object to is that fast cars tend to have loud exhausts. This is unwanted obtrusive noise to innocent bystanders. I live 5 miles from the nearest motorway/dual carriageway and on a nice day I can still hear traffic.

I would like to add that I have been trained to a high standard many years ago and at the time I thought it was all just fun.

Now I have a more sedintary lifestyle and enjoy the finer things in life I just find traffic annoying. And all those idiots in fast cars that zoom around everywhere are very annoying.

I just think grow up please. If you want to speed pay up and use a race track. Just the same as if I wanted to go off road I've got to pay.

Speeding is Anti Social and bloody dangerous.

NR.

PS. I won't be writing any more on this as its a bit like hitting your head against a brick wall trying to get your point across.
__________________

__________________
http://www.xfire.com/download/
Biggles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04 July 2007, 17:15   #22
Member
 
Country: UK - England
Town: Aylesbury
Length: no boat
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 345
so anyway, back to the point, under this crazy mans clever idea, in 2013 will my grandmother have to have a speed limiter fitted to her 1992 automatic Honda Civic?
__________________

__________________
________________________________________
May the force be with you. But mostly with me.
wavecrosschris is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04 July 2007, 17:25   #23
Member
 
Country: UK - Wales
Town: swansea
Boat name: Too Blue
Make: BLANK
Length: 8m +
Engine: Suzuki DT225
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 12,791
Biggles there is one thing in particular you seem to have missed the point completely on. Traffic noise comes from the TYRES on the ROAD far more so than engine noise. I am unfortunate enough to live quite near the M4 so I think I know what I am on about. Even worse are the concrete roads - for example the A465 through Glyneath. The road noise is horrendous.

There IS a solution. In fact probably one of the biggest safety improvements they could ever make to our roads - much better than speed humps or cameras.

Porous tarmac. They have a few trial sections around the country. There is one section on the M4 near Bridgend. You know when you are driving on it because almost all the road noise vanishes. Even better there is NO spray. You know what it's like trying to pass a big lorry in rain - almost totally blinded by spray. There is none of that - it's almost as though it's stopped raining. No standing water anywhere so no aquaplaning. Cars also use less fuel and people living near the roads benefit as well. surely they should bring this in instead of more rules regulating motorists???
__________________
codprawn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04 July 2007, 17:40   #24
DJL
Member
 
Country: UK - England
Make: Ribcraft 6.5
Length: 6m +
Engine: Suzuki DF175TG
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 929
Another stupid idea. It will have no effect on road safety - most accidents on the roads happen well below 100mph - and I can't see it having any effect on emissions either, people will still buy big engines to accelerate quickly, exactly as they do now.

If you want to tackle road safety then you need to look at education and policing. I personally think new drivers should have to do motorway driving as part of their test and also sit another test around a year after passing first time. Doing my B+E test several years after my original test really improved my driving.

Second, we need to stop using GATSOS/Radar guns, which do nothing but raise money, cause tension between police and motorists and make cause to brake sharply. Where speed cameras are really needed then average speed cameras should be used - they actually work. More importantly we need police on the roads targeting the dangerous drivers - the ones that tailgate, undertake, use excessive speed and generally f' around on the roads.

There are also other better methods of cutting speed. I'm currently piloting “smarter insurance”. I have a GPS tracker in the car which monitors my speed and driving hours. If I stick to the speed limit (+10%) and limit my night time driving I get upt o 25% of my insurance premium back. That could work out to be a considerable amount for a new driver. It’s certainly slowed me down - I broke the speed limit 4 times last month by less than about 15%.

If you really want to cut emissions then simply the government needs to bring in CO2 emissions limits. You could do it on car size and gradually squeeze the limits so manufacturers have to R&D cleaner engines/other propulsion methods - ie a family hatch should produce no more than 125g of CO2.

As far as I’m concerned nobody in government has the balls to make any bold and useful changes, so instead they come up with pointless ideas just to make it look as though their attempting to tackle the problem.
__________________
DJL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04 July 2007, 17:55   #25
Member
 
Country: UK - Wales
Town: swansea
Boat name: Too Blue
Make: BLANK
Length: 8m +
Engine: Suzuki DT225
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 12,791
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJL View Post
There are also other better methods of cutting speed. I'm currently piloting “smarter insurance”. I have a GPS tracker in the car which monitors my speed and driving hours. If I stick to the speed limit (+10%) and limit my night time driving I get upt o 25% of my insurance premium back. That could work out to be a considerable amount for a new driver. It’s certainly slowed me down - I broke the speed limit 4 times last month by less than about 15%.
I agree with most of what you say BUT have you gone mad??? Do you have a CCTV camera in your bathroom to make sure you aren't breaking any laws? This is the very thin end of the wedge!!!

I am sure most old biddies never break the speed limit and don't go out after dark either - they still scare the proverbial out of me on the roads!!!
__________________
codprawn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04 July 2007, 19:08   #26
DJL
Member
 
Country: UK - England
Make: Ribcraft 6.5
Length: 6m +
Engine: Suzuki DF175TG
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 929
Quote:
Originally Posted by codprawn View Post
I agree with most of what you say BUT have you gone mad??? Do you have a CCTV camera in your bathroom to make sure you aren't breaking any laws? This is the very thin end of the wedge!!!

I am sure most old biddies never break the speed limit and don't go out after dark either - they still scare the proverbial out of me on the roads!!!

With regards to elderly drivers, I agree - as with new drivers I believe they should be retested.

Coming back to GPS tracking - I don't think it’s a system that should become compulsory. Instead you make it financially beneficial to the driver.

For example - newly qualified drivers should be force to take out their own policy; they shouldn't be able to be a named driver on a parent’s policy to save money. If those drivers have to pay £2000 a year insurance, but are offered the option of having the GPS device installed with the potential of saving say 60% for sticking to speed limits - I suspect there would be significant pressure to slow them down.

Similarly, you get points on your license for speeding; premium goes up by £1000. But you could earn that back by having the tracker and sticking to the limits.

Make the insurance companies target those that statistcally are found to speed

Plus if your car get stolens it can be recovered.

Personally, I’d rather they just got rid of speed cameras etc and we had a reasonable number of traffic police - but that doesn't appear financially viable these days.
__________________
DJL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04 July 2007, 19:25   #27
Member
 
Country: UK - England
Town: West Sussex
Boat name: Everlong
Make: Botnia Targa 27
Length: 8m +
Engine: Volvo KAD44
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 475
Quote:
Originally Posted by Biggles View Post
Sorry folks,

But I see countless idiots speeding. I see people weaving in and out of traffic on Motorways and I see people overtaking on A and B roads recklessly through the use of speed.

Because this and previous governments have left our roads in a 1940s state we just don't have roads capable of taking high speed cars.

Another thing I object to is that fast cars tend to have loud exhausts. This is unwanted obtrusive noise to innocent bystanders. I live 5 miles from the nearest motorway/dual carriageway and on a nice day I can still hear traffic.

I would like to add that I have been trained to a high standard many years ago and at the time I thought it was all just fun.

Now I have a more sedintary lifestyle and enjoy the finer things in life I just find traffic annoying. And all those idiots in fast cars that zoom around everywhere are very annoying.

I just think grow up please. If you want to speed pay up and use a race track. Just the same as if I wanted to go off road I've got to pay.

Speeding is Anti Social and bloody dangerous.

NR.

PS. I won't be writing any more on this as its a bit like hitting your head against a brick wall trying to get your point across.

Bullshit from start to finish IMHO.
__________________
donutsina911 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05 July 2007, 01:15   #28
Member
 
Country: Canada
Town: British Columbia
Make: Gemini
Length: 4m +
Engine: 40hp 2 str
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 2,151
So when can we expect a ban on boats that go faster than 40 knots ?

Why would anyone who is not a drug runner ever want to go more than 40 knots ?

The gas consumption of a car doing 100 mph is way less than most boats doing more than 40 knots!

If we care at all for planet Earth, we must act now to save it by lobby our politicians to ban all boats capable of doing better than 40 knots!!!
__________________
prairie tuber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05 July 2007, 03:47   #29
RIBnet supporter
 
Country: UK - England
Town: Over there ---->
Length: 3m +
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 240


I wasn't going to get involved in this one...

Speed in excess of the limit is a contributary factor in 5% of deaths and injuries (KSIs) on our roads. Thus speed cameras can logically only 'prevent'* 5% of injuries and deaths.

Excessive speed for the conditions WITHIN the limit is a contributary factor in 26% of KSIs.

That leaves 69% of all deaths and injuries that have NOTHING to do with speed at all, in fact most of these are a result of driver error / inattention (from memory only 5% of KSIs are attributed to mechanical failure)


The ONLY way to improve our roads is education. Teach people to drive safely and judge for themselves what an appropriate speed is at ALL times. At the moment we're expected to be able to judge when the speed limit is to high for the conditions and slow accordingly, but we're not allowed the same privilege if we consider the speed limit too low.

WRT CO2, the best way to reduce CO2 emissions is to allow the traffic to flow freely and teach people how to drive efficiently. Stop / start, slow moving traffic produces MORE CO2 than free-flowing traffic. And don't even start on electric cars as the electricity still has to be generated somewhere.

Enforcing speed limiters on cars (this is what will happen in reality, manufacturers aren't going to design a range of cars specifically for the UK market) won't have any effect on accident rates OR emissions because you'll still have however many horses under the bonnet, using exactly the same amount of fuel as before. The percentage of the time when it's actually possible to exceed 100mph is realisticly so low that the CO2 'saving' will be negligable.

Now FFS no-one start on this topic at the weekend!!

------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Cameras in fact don't prevent jack. A letter in the post 14 days later does not reduce the risk of an accident at the time of the offence. SPECS (average speed cameras) do nothing except create bunching, tailgating and dangerous levels of concentration on the speedo and nothing else.

Some interesting statistics relating to injury accidents in motorway roadworks (referred to as PIA or 'Personal injury accidents') where different types of speed enforcement were deployed. The percentage figures quoted show the comparison between the number of PIAs with and without enforcement.

Amalogue cameras 55% INCREASE
Digital cameras (SPECS) 4.5% INCREASE
Police patrols 27% DECREASE.

The same comparison on an open motorway with no roadworks or speed restrictions:

Analogue cameras 31% INCREASE
Digital cameras 6.7% INCREASE
Police patrols 10% DECREASE

All the figures quoted are from DfT's OWN statistics.
__________________
I don't have an attitude, I have a personality you can't handle.
Sixy_the_red is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05 July 2007, 08:28   #30
Member
 
Country: UK - England
Town: Nr Tring
Boat name: Braveheart
Make: Porters Renegade
Length: 6m +
Engine: Tohatsu 140
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 305
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sixy_the_red View Post
All the figures quoted are from DfT's OWN statistics.
Speeding should be in context and is an emotive subject.

I have been driving for 20 years and successfully not been done for speeding. I think that everybody would (should) agree that speeding near a school, etc. is a bad idea and yet speeding on a motorway where the conditions allow, speeding could be acceptable.

Therefore, education is the only way forward.

Six years ago, I was stopped for driving at 66 in a 40 limit - I know! I received such a b*******g from the policeman - quite rightly - but he did let me off.

Six years on, I still do 30 in a 30 limit - much to the annoyance of other drivers I may add, 40 in a 40 limit, etc. However, I do feel that motorways and fast dual-carriageway A roads are acceptable where the conditions are right.

Time and money should be spent on teaching people when to overtake cyclists/motorcyclists and when not to, where it is safe to drive fast, and where it is not. When doing my motorbike test, the number of cars that overtook on a blind bend and then cut in with an oncoming car - I doubt they were going over the speed limit, they just couldn't drive! Adverts are not the way forward and neither are points. Educational programs for those caught speeding or offending would be far more beneficial and they would have to pay the price of the course. My dad was sent on one - long story - and even though I would class him as a very competent driver, he said he learnt a lot and it also meant he didn't get points. It has made him more aware and slower!
__________________

__________________
Build a system that even a fool can use, and only a fool will want to use it.
George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950)
Sarah G is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off





Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:06.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.