Variable speed limits on the M25

I also feel like killing the driver in front inversely proportionally to the speed they are dawdling at.

Lack of speed kills!

 

Who knows , speed kills , fact really

Its obviously a laughing matter for some , but that isnt surprising to be fair

 

sorry.

 

[video=youtube;ob1rYlCpOnM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ob1rYlCpOnM[/video]

 

Here's a soundtrack for you Meister

[video=youtube;jojuPQXMm44]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jojuPQXMm44[/video]

 

I would have at least confronted her and asked if she ever thought of giving up driving. Especially now with online shopping there's little excuse.

 

Bingo!

 

I don't think you understand why there are variable speed limits. It's not primarily about safety but traffic flow. It has been proved that reducing speed when there is congestion or blockages (busy junctions etc) that the traffic actually flows better and we ALL get to where we want to get to more quickly. You may not see any congestion and the traffic you are in may be flowing nicely but the variable speed limits are there for a reason.

It may be counter intuitive but it is a fact. There was recent a Myth Busters episode that proved it using a very simplistic but effective method.

One of the reasons is that when someone slows rapidly it can have a ripple effect that can last up to 8 miles behind them. By racing up to a traffic issue and then breaking heavily, you're not only not making any quicker progress, but you actually make things worse behind you.

I'm with Layton on this one. Safety is enough of a reason to curb speed but with variable speed limits it actually means that you get there quicker if everyone sticks to them. For that reason, I think anyone who gets done for speeding deserves the 3 points.

 

I think my definition of throughfare and yours are somewhat different and hence you jump to this rather rash conclusion about my thinking possibly as we've hit a raw nerve. I fear we shall have to agree to disagree.

Cyclists, especially spandex clad ones are fair game though.

 

Bike*******!!!!!

 

If the argument that speed kills, surely we would be talking about the tens of thousands of deaths on the German Autobahns each year?

•Vehicles that drive on the Autobahn are required to have scheduled vehicle checks every two years, something that isn’t required in other countries.
•Not giving other drivers the space they require to operate a vehicle safely can result in being pulled over or a heavy fine.
•Driving fast requires a lot of extra attention to the roadway, eliminating the temptation to be distracted by a phone call, texting, or eating a hamburger while driving.
•The injury rate for accidents that occur on the Autobahn is just 0.08 per billion kilometers.
•Only 4 states in the US have safer roads than Germany.
•Most drivers stick to the advised speed limit on unregulated stretches of the Autobahn – only about 1/3 of drivers historically exceed the recommended speed limit.
•The penalty for tailgaiting, which can be enforced by camera, is up to €375 and three months of a license suspension.


They have much heavier penalties on tailgating and space than we do plus, as mentioned previously, it requires far more concentration to drive faster which means people are less tempted to use mobiles etc.

Plus, if you drive fast on the Autobahn, it is proven that you are more likely to drive at the correct speed on the speed limited roads.

 

Speed does kill , its a fact , as in , if you hit something at 40 , you will do more damage than hitting it at 20

which bit of that escapes you ?

 

All of that.

Driving at 10mph out of my head on cocaine I could kill someone.

 

Driving at 0mph out your head on coke means you wont

Get it yet ?

 

Not so likely. As you like your stats, here's some for you........

If someone is hit by a car at 40 mph they are 90% likely to be killed.

If someone is hit by a car at 30 mph they are 50% likely to be killed.

If someone is hit by a car at 20 mph they are 10% likely to be killed.

 

No, when you reach 70 you have to self-certify every 3 years that you are fit to drive.

 

The vehicle tests are stricter particularly on things like brake condition and there are comparatively few wrecks driving around ... but I agree, yearly checks here are overkill and probably just a money making exercise.

Also German Autobahn's are considerably wider than our own motorways and where they are not then speed restrictions are always in place.

 

I see so many bell*nds weaving in and out of traffic when the motorway is cluttered. I wish the cameras would pick out this sort of behaviour rather than someone going 90 in the fast lane when the motorway is completely clear.

 

Great - but if the driver was concentrating in the first place and not on their phone/changing radios etc they may not have hit them.

If speed was the biggest killer then the stats would be exponential depending on the speed:

10 mph kills 2,
20 mph kills 4,
30 mph kills 7,
50 mph kills 9,
70 mph kills 11


But that's not the case is it.

 

What the fark are you on about

 

Read.

You are saying speed is the biggest killer.

If that was correct then the faster you go, the more deaths that would occur, that clearly isn't true.

 

Wow - I did not know that - a common misconception apparently from a quick google search:

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/...think-drivers-age-66-retake-driving-test.html

"...despite people believing those over a certain age should retake their test, official statistics from the Department of Transport show those over 70 are safer drivers than younger ones."

Possibly because they drive at 10 miles an hour everywhere. Possibly because they probably have less driving hours a week than someone who works and less time on faster roads/motorways.

 

Nobody dies in a 10 mph collision and higher speeds multiply deaths alarmingly. Get some real figures and your argument is instantly crushed.

 

Where urban speeds are reduced fatalities are reduced. Fact.

You could be right but I tend to believe Sir Isaac Newton and his law.....

http://humantransport.org/sidewalks/SpeedKills.htm

 

Legs you're talking rubbish I'm afraid mate.

If someone walks out right in front of you, it doesn't matter if you're the most aware driver in the world, you'll hit them. If you're going 20mph, there's a good chance they'll survive. 40mph, not so lucky.

 

Simple physics is all you need to prove that speed kills: force = mass x acceleration.

An object traveling at 90 mph is more dangerous than the same object traveling at 20 mph. That's just empirical fact. Conflating the likelihood of an accident happening due to the potential for a distracted (AKA moronic) driver with the actual physics involved in a high speed collision is disingenuous. It's easily proven when you control for outside factors. If you consider the case of two distracted drivers moving at 30mph and 90mph, the driver traveling at 90mph will be involved in a far more serious crash because the law of physics dictate so.

Increasing the speed limit to the point where people can't use a mobile phone while driving because they are white knuckling the steering wheel is not the answer. Not talking on the bloody phone while driving is the answer.

 

You just have been up incredibly early to even be able to go through Southall at more than 15mph anyway.

I assume you're on about the Uxbridge Road which, yes is straight and long and wide, is also populated by many local shopping centres, schools, libraries, hospitals and such. Historically it may have been a "main road" but it is also surrounded by the A40, M4 and A312. If 20mph for a maximum of a mile is too slow for you, I suggest you use the actual "main roads" within its vicinity.

 

To be fair, I'm just surprised it took 43 posts before this was thrown my way. I understand the variable speed limits well Sydney, I even saw that episode of Mythbusters and very good it was too. I have driven much faster than the variable speed limits many times when safe to do so IMO, and I'll wager so have many others, hence the thread warning that it's not a good idea anymore for those that weren't aware of the new cameras.

**** waving is more than welcome on this thread, hence my 33 years of no claims and stopping easily when a small child ran out in front of me a year ago. Common sense innit.

 

But is that speed thats killing? No its a bloody idiot walking in front of the car!

 

You only had to go back one page Godfather - unfortunately I didn't have the stats for the Brazilian second division roads.

 

It's 20mph because the locals think nothing of walking straight across the road without thinking. Someone who lives there told me as such. It's down to the pedestrians, not the motorists. Forcing motorists to crawl along just builds frustration in some and that's shown by the sudden bursts of speed you see after any speed camera. As I said above, 20mph is too slow for a main route, but I take your point, it's difficult to get that fast through that stretch anyway.

 

Newton v legs

Legs loses

 

Im not denying the higher the speed the more chance of a death.

What I am denying is that speed is the MAIN reason for fatalities on the road.

 

Why aren't motorways the most dangerous roads then, rather than the safest?

 

Well saying you understand variable speed limits and then say you break them when "safe to do so" makes absolutely no sense.

I have also 33 years on the road in two countries. Zero accidents, zero near misses and zero penalty infringements.

I appreciate you were just warning people who ignore variable speed limits that they may now be fined. Good on you for that but you portray it as somehow unjust when it's clearly not.