# What is the point of a 1 week driving ban?



## Smurfy (7 Jan 2015)

How hard can it be to go a week without driving? Is it even much of a deterrent at all? Admittedly insurance premiums will probably increase, but all in all I'm struggling to see the point of this.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/cel...nned-from-driving-for-speeding-at-101mph.html


----------



## raleighnut (7 Jan 2015)

Isn't driving at over 100mph an automatic ban and one week the minimum length of ban, plus in a car of that nature on a motorway I'd think it was pretty safe to do so.


----------



## KneesUp (7 Jan 2015)

I was always told that being caught over 100mph is an automatic ban. However, as this was only 1mph over and appears from reports to have not been excessively dangerous I suppose they imposed the minimum ban they could.

What would you have like to have seen instead @YellowTim?


----------



## CopperCyclist (7 Jan 2015)

It's not automatic ban above 100, it's just that the magistrates Have to consider it at that speed. 

I'd suggest the point of it in this case was so that the driver has a ban on their record. The insurance rise will be a side effect too of course.


----------



## edindave (7 Jan 2015)

Not that the average Aston Martin owner would be worried too much about the impact on his insurance premium.


----------



## KneesUp (7 Jan 2015)

User said:


> Variable tolerances for those in possession of more powerful cars. Hmmm.


Whilst it isn't a point I've made, there is logic in the offence varying by vehicle. A car such as the one being driven will steer and stop a lot better at 100mph than, for example, my old Ford Ka, which might have just got to that speed on a long downhill with a tailwind. Ergo the former is safer at that speed than the latter. If the offence was created as a safety measure then it is logical that the amount of danger created matters. It is indeed for that reason that driving on a normal road at 30mph is legal, whereas driving on a normal road at any speed whilst inebriated is an offence.

Besides which we do already have 'variable tolerance' of speed - there are different limits for different types of vehicle.

In practice it would be impossible to codify 'danger' as such.


----------



## derrick (7 Jan 2015)

[QUOTE 3463140, member: 9609"]I wouldn't of thought 101 in an Aston Martin was speeding let alone much of an offence[/QUOTE]
That depends on the idiot behind the wheel


----------



## sidevalve (7 Jan 2015)

Just a point - a 1 [one] week ban is 1 [one] week longer that any cyclist would receive however and wherever he rode, no matter how fast and as there is no compulsory third party insurance that doesn't apply either.. [And please no 'Oh a bicycle wouldn't do as much damage as a car' we are talking principles here].


----------



## Turbo Rider (7 Jan 2015)

KneesUp said:


> Whilst it isn't a point I've made, there is logic in the offence varying by vehicle. A car such as the one being driven will steer and stop a lot better at 100mph than, for example, my old Ford Ka, which might have just got to that speed on a long downhill with a tailwind. Ergo the former is safer at that speed than the latter. If the offence was created as a safety measure then it is logical that the amount of danger created matters. It is indeed for that reason that driving on a normal road at 30mph is legal, whereas driving on a normal road at any speed whilst inebriated is an offence.
> 
> Besides which we do already have 'variable tolerance' of speed - there are different limits for different types of vehicle.
> 
> In practice it would be impossible to codify 'danger' as such.



I get the point, but it depends what happens next really. You can't deny that any vehicle doing 101mph is likely to do more damage than a car doing 70mph. Speed limits are in place for a reason. They say that if you sneeze while driving at 70mph, you travel 300 yards and there are allsorts of things in a car to distract a driver from the task in hand, so 101mph is not safe at all IMO.


----------



## raleighnut (7 Jan 2015)

User said:


> Variable tolerances for those in possession of more powerful cars. Hmmm.


Not just more power but better brakes, better tyres and better handling at speed on a road that was designed not to have any speed limits and Aston Martin cars are not the only ones easily capable of safe travel at those speeds when in a 'safer' environment i.e. A Motorway or an Autobahn.
Speed restrictions were brought in at the time of the 'oil crisis' and no government since has been 'brave' enough to rescind them but that would lead to 'Joe Knobhead'' in his clapped out boy racer causing chaos by driving beyond the capabilities of whatever he'd managed to 'scrape through' our woefully inadequate MOT test.


----------



## jefmcg (7 Jan 2015)

KneesUp said:


> Whilst it isn't a point I've made, there is logic in the offence varying by vehicle. A car such as the one being driven will steer and stop a lot better at 100mph than, for example, my old Ford Ka, which might have just got to that speed on a long downhill with a tailwind. Ergo the former is safer at that speed than the latter. If the offence was created as a safety measure then it is logical that the amount of danger created matters. It is indeed for that reason that driving on a normal road at 30mph is legal, whereas driving on a normal road at any speed whilst inebriated is an offence.


I thought the difference was about weight. A HGV would do a lot more damage in a collision than a sedan, thus it travels more slowly.

A Ka weighs about 1/2 of a DB9, so obviously the Ka should be able to legally go twice as fast (physics and engine sizes not with standing)


----------



## raleighnut (7 Jan 2015)

User said:


> Not so. Motorways speed limits were imposed before that.


Were they I certainly remember sitting in the passenger seat of my uncles 4 litre (Rolls Royce) engined Vandem Plas Princess at around 110-120 mph on the A46 in 1970 (same chassis as the Morris Oxford/Austin Cambridge)


----------



## recumbentpanda (7 Jan 2015)

OMG! raleighnut is an escaped petrol head from the 'Safe Speed' website!

Or possibly an alias for Jeremy Clarkson . . . .


----------



## robjh (7 Jan 2015)

raleighnut said:


> Were they I certainly remember sitting in the passenger seat of my uncles 4 litre (Rolls Royce) engined Vandem Plas Princess at around 110-120 mph on the A46 in 1970 (same chassis as the Morris Oxford/Austin Cambridge)


The 70mph limit was introduced in 1965. Doing 110 mph in 1970 was as illegal and reckless then as it is now.


----------



## EltonFrog (7 Jan 2015)

About 20 years ago I got banned for a week, cant remember why now. On the day of the ban I walke to my nearest LBS and bought a bike to get me through the week. I've been cycling ever since.


----------



## steveindenmark (7 Jan 2015)

Elliot Spencer must have fallen for Stephens rugged good looks and charm then. 

Nice to see they decided not to buy an Aston Martin after all.


----------



## jefmcg (7 Jan 2015)

but this is why he made an announcement about it yesterday. Obviously they decided Fry should appear in court, and they were heading off any salacious rumours that might ensue.


----------



## Smurfy (8 Jan 2015)

KneesUp said:


> I was always told that being caught over 100mph is an automatic ban. However, as this was only 1mph over and appears from reports to have not been excessively dangerous I suppose they imposed the minimum ban they could.
> 
> What would you have like to have seen instead @YellowTim?


In my opinion, a ban of less than one month is pretty meaningless.



KneesUp said:


> Whilst it isn't a point I've made, there is logic in the offence varying by vehicle. A car such as the one being driven will steer and stop a lot better at 100mph than, for example, my old Ford Ka, which might have just got to that speed on a long downhill with a tailwind. Ergo the former is safer at that speed than the latter. If the offence was created as a safety measure then it is logical that the amount of danger created matters. It is indeed for that reason that driving on a normal road at 30mph is legal, whereas driving on a normal road at any speed whilst inebriated is an offence.
> 
> Besides which we do already have 'variable tolerance' of speed - there are different limits for different types of vehicle.
> 
> In practice it would be impossible to codify 'danger' as such.


What you need to consider is that if this Aston Martin collides with a Ford Ka at that speed, the Aston Martin driver is much more likely to survive than the Ford driver. This is one of the reasons I hate Chelsea Tractors, Pick Ups and other very large 'cars' so much, they're so heavily built, the average road user will invariably come off much, much worse. Of course lorries are much heavier still, but they require a higher level of training, and do actually serve a useful purpose.

Aston Martin DB9 = 1785kg
http://www.astonmartin.com/en/cars/the-new-db9/db9-technical

Ford Ka = 871-935kg
http://www.parkers.co.uk/cars/reviews/facts-and-figures/ford/ka/hatchback-1996/dimensions/


----------



## raleighnut (8 Jan 2015)

recumbentpanda said:


> OMG! raleighnut is an escaped petrol head from the 'Safe Speed' website!
> 
> Or possibly an alias for Jeremy Clarkson . . . .


 No I've never had a road licence for a car (I did have a competition licence but allowed it to lapse) and my only form of transport since 1985 has been cycles. The last time I drove a car on the road was in 1989 when my partner injured her knee walking in the Lake District and I drove the car home using my Motorcycle licence as a provisional and with my name on the insurance (a quick phone call) and 'L' plates (it was a 2 year old Peugeot 205 1.9 GTI)
I was always far too 'lairy' to drive on the roads despite qualifying as a car mechanic ( The bosses son and I used to compete in 'Rallycross' of a Sunday)


----------



## jefmcg (8 Jan 2015)

jefmcg said:


> I thought the difference was about weight. A HGV would do a lot more damage in a collision than a sedan, thus it travels more slowly.
> 
> A Ka weighs about 1/2 of a DB9, so obviously the Ka should be able to legally go twice as fast (physics and engine sizes not with standing)





YellowTim said:


> In my opinion, a ban of less than one month is pretty meaningless.
> 
> 
> What you need to consider is that if this Aston Martin collides with a Ford Ka at that speed, the Aston Martin driver is much more likely to survive than the Ford driver. This is one of the reasons I hate Chelsea Tractors, Pick Ups and other very large 'cars' so much, they're so heavily built, the average road user will invariably come off much, much worse. Of course lorries are much heavier still, but they require a higher level of training, and do actually serve a useful purpose.
> ...



And that's a TMN to me!


----------



## glenn forger (8 Jan 2015)

sidevalve said:


> Just a point - a 1 [one] week ban is 1 [one] week longer that any cyclist would receive however and wherever he rode, no matter how fast and as there is no compulsory third party insurance that doesn't apply either.. [And please no 'Oh a bicycle wouldn't do as much damage as a car' we are talking principles here].



That's because cyclists have a right to the road, motorists are only allowed onto roads under strict conditions. Your argument for insurance for cyclists would be bolstered were you to post a verifiable example of a cyclist causing an unrecoverable loss, ever. got one? If it's such a big problem I guess you just have loads of examples.


----------



## w00hoo_kent (8 Jan 2015)

User said:


> Not so. Motorways speed limits were imposed before that.


I believe (enough not to bother googling to check, but not enough to bet money on it) that the speed limits came in to stop people/factories using motorways to speed test high performance cars, I have a much vaguer notion that either the Ford GT40, or TVR in general were the reason although it could equally have been Jaguar.


----------



## StuartG (12 Jan 2015)

I was intrigued by the statement that 'no other road users were inconvenienced'. Which is kinda interesting because in order to make up significant time the pair must have been driving at speed for a considerable time on a busy road passing many other road users with a considerable speed difference. Oh - and not being observant enough to spot a camera - or the speedo (aka unfamiliarity with this vehicle). So why would they have spotted me, perhaps a less excellent but considerately more experienced driver than Mr Spencer and I could well have misjudged that the vehicle coming up behind was closing so fast and with less time to spot/correct. I may because of this have done something tragic that may have been curtains for us all? Would I take the rap?

Otherwise their speed would have inhibited me from making a perfect legal and sensible manouvre to overtake a slower vehicle and make best use of all the lanes instead it being reserved for hoodlums.

BTW the limit introduced during the oil crisis was either 50 or 55mph from memory. Perhaps that could now be used to justify a 100 mph limit during this surplus


----------



## w00hoo_kent (12 Jan 2015)

There's a lot of supposition there.
Looking at it the other way, they might have only sped up when the road was empty and backed off again when cars came in to sight. It's surprisingly easy to go very quickly when in charge of a vehicle that is designed to go very quickly without realising how fast you happen to be going. I'd imagine 101mph in an Aston ridiculously easy to reach and like it or not equally easy to control the car at and slow back down from. Not condoning it, but not surprised by it and it doesn't necessarily follow that it was truly dangerous. Equally not surprised that he missed a speed camera. I'd imagine with Stephen Fry flapping away in the passenger seat about being late you might not be thinking of checking the road furniture as well as the road.
I did like the naivety that Fry thought he could just say 'it was really my fault' and get things changed because of it.


----------



## Smurfy (12 Jan 2015)

w00hoo_kent said:


> It's surprisingly easy to go very quickly when in charge of a vehicle that is designed to go very quickly without realising how fast you happen to be going.


I used to know someone who had one of these.
http://www.jaguar.co.uk/jaguar-range/xj/xj-models/xjr_swb.html
It's true that you hardly notice 100mph in such a well built, massively overpowered and sound proofed car.


----------



## StuartG (12 Jan 2015)

YellowTim said:


> It's true that you hardly notice 100mph in such a well built, massively overpowered and sound proofed car.


I see, so what does the speedo indicate when you are doing 100mph? Or is it flipped out of sight?
Do 747 captains have the same problem in an even more stressful situation?

Should people be licensed to drive vehicles they can't control properly?


----------



## glasgowcyclist (12 Jan 2015)

KneesUp said:


> A car such as the one being driven will steer and stop a lot better at 100mph than, for example, my old Ford Ka, ...



The car will only handle or respond according to the input from the driver. Is his skill to be assumed on the basis of the car he's driving?

GC


----------



## oldfatfool (12 Jan 2015)

Always makes me laugh that I can take any old banger to Germany and drive down the autobahn (a dual carriageway in most instances) at any old speed I like, yet in good old blighty on a three lane m'way the world ends at anything approaching 3 figures. Speed is not dangerous, inappropriate speeding is.


----------



## KneesUp (12 Jan 2015)

glasgowcyclist said:


> The car will only handle or respond according to the input from the driver. Is his skill to be assumed on the basis of the car he's driving?
> 
> GC


No - his skill is not a function of the car, obviously. Otherwise you could put anyone in a racing car and they would win.

Assume that the chance of an accident is a function of the capabilities of the car and of the driver (as well as other factors)

It follows that the same driver in a car that stops faster and responds to steering input more progressively will be more in control. Of all the cars I've owned I know that in an emergency situation I'd rather be in my (long gone) Alfa Romeo as it had the best brakes and the most precise steering of any car I've had - and I'd least like to be in my Viva, which was like driving a sofa.


----------



## green1 (12 Jan 2015)

w00hoo_kent said:


> I believe (enough not to bother googling to check, but not enough to bet money on it) that the speed limits came in to stop people/factories using motorways to speed test high performance cars, I have a much vaguer notion that either the Ford GT40, or TVR in general were the reason although it could equally have been Jaguar.


They were all doing it but I think it was AC doing pre Le Mans testing of the Cobra on the M1 was the straw that broke the camels back. He didn't have a speedo but they worked out he was doing 185mph.


----------



## StuartG (13 Jan 2015)

oldfatfool said:


> Speed is not dangerous, inappropriate speeding is.


The KSI statistics and physics would indicate otherwise. Is this a problem for you?


----------



## benb (13 Jan 2015)

sidevalve said:


> Just a point - a 1 [one] week ban is 1 [one] week longer that any cyclist would receive however and wherever he rode, no matter how fast and as there is no compulsory third party insurance that doesn't apply either.. [And please no 'Oh a bicycle wouldn't do as much damage as a car' we are talking principles here].



That is quite staggeringly idiotic.
The reason cycles don't need insurance is that the risk they pose is negligible. That's why insurance for HGVs is significantly more expensive than for a small hatchback: differing levels of risk.


----------



## glenn forger (13 Jan 2015)

oldfatfool said:


> Always makes me laugh that I can take any old banger to Germany and drive down the autobahn (a dual carriageway in most instances) at any old speed I like, yet in good old blighty on a three lane m'way the world ends at anything approaching 3 figures. Speed is not dangerous, inappropriate speeding is.



This is the sort of garbage you get on pro speeding websites. None of this is true.


----------



## oldfatfool (13 Jan 2015)

glenn forger said:


> This is the sort of garbage you get on pro speeding websites. None of this is true.


Which bit is untrue? Other than the world really wont end and the kittens will still be free to romp in the meadows


----------



## Wobblers (13 Jan 2015)

oldfatfool said:


> Which bit is untrue? Other than the world really wont end and the kittens will still be free to romp in the meadows



We can start with the "most autobahns are the equivalent of dual carriage ways". They aren't.

Many (most?) autobahns have speed limits.

Very elementary physics tells us that the kinetic energy varies as the square of the velocity. The probability of serious injury in a crash therefore also varies with velocity. There is an _inverse _relationship between speed and available time in which you can take action to avoid an accident. Centripetal force increases with the square of the velocity. Hence the ability to corner decreases as the square of the velocity. And the necessary lateral forces between tyre and road surface increase with the square of the velocity. Thus the chances of crashing also increase with speed, and the state of the road surface becomes more and more important - as the square of the velocity. In short, the assertion that speed is not dangerous is entirely false.


----------



## glenn forger (13 Jan 2015)

oldfatfool said:


> Which bit is untrue? Other than the world really wont end and the kittens will still be free to romp in the meadows



Don't take my word for it. Take your old banger to Germany and drive at whatever speed you like on the autobahn, see what happens.


----------



## oldfatfool (14 Jan 2015)

glenn forger said:


> Don't take my word for it. Take your old banger to Germany and drive at whatever speed you like on the autobahn, see what happens.


Have done several times, top down at a steady 130, cruise set at a reasonable 150. no worries, no stress, no hassle. Oh and as a point of fact a good chunk of the de-restricted autobahn is duel carriageway.


----------



## glenn forger (14 Jan 2015)

Which one? You claimed you can drive down the autobahn at any speed you like. You are quite wrong, you can't, not many are unrestricted.


----------



## glenn forger (14 Jan 2015)

oldfatfool said:


> Speed is not dangerous, inappropriate speeding is.



Most drivers think 30mph is appropriate in residential streets. Twenty mph zones reduce collisions and injuries by up to 40%. You don't know what you're talking about.


----------



## Markymark (14 Jan 2015)

Germany has one of the safest motorways in the world. It does have restrictions in built-up areas and at junctions. The motorways are also built to a higher spec. for faster driving than those in the UK.

It's not true to say the speed is not an issue. It's also true to say than sometimes speed isn't a major issue. If it were then autobhans would have higher crash rates than other countries. They don't. That's not to see that speed should be high at junctions, towns, bendier roads etc etc etc


----------



## Phaeton (14 Jan 2015)

oldfatfool said:


> Speed is not dangerous, inappropriate speeding is.


^^^^^ This is the most sensible thing said in this debate



glenn forger said:


> Most drivers think 30mph is appropriate in residential streets. Twenty mph zones reduce collisions and injuries by up to 40%. You don't know what you're talking about.


^^^^^ This is the most stupid thing said in this debate, apart from "Twenty mph zones reduce collisions and injuries by up to 40%."


----------



## oldfatfool (14 Jan 2015)

glenn forger said:


> Which one? You claimed you can drive down the autobahn at any speed you like. You are quite wrong, you can't, not many are unrestricted.


You can drive down the unrestricted sections of autobahn at any speed you like depending on the weather. Much of the autobahn that is unrestricted is duel carriageway. Couldn't tell you road numbers without looking on a map (which I can't be arsed to do) but for what it is worth I just look for the black circle on a white background with a line through it, to give it its German name it is the puttendasclogdownundfukit sign.


----------



## glenn forger (14 Jan 2015)

Phaeton said:


> ^^^^^ This is the most sensible thing said in this debate
> 
> 
> ^^^^^ This is the most stupid thing said in this debate, apart from "Twenty mph zones reduce collisions and injuries by up to 40%."



It's a peer-reviewed study by the BMJ:

*UK cities should have more 20mph speed zones, as they have cut road injuries by over 40% in London, a study claims.*

In particular the number of children killed or seriously injured has been halved over the past 15 years, the British Medical Journal reported.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8406569.stm


----------



## glenn forger (14 Jan 2015)

oldfatfool said:


> You can drive down the unrestricted sections of autobahn at any speed you like depending on the weather.



You said nothing about unrestricted sections, you said the autobhan.

Apology accepted.


----------



## oldfatfool (14 Jan 2015)

I am now going to blow the wifes pension fund investing in OXS and FTE if you want a share tip.

Remember shares can go down as well as up etc etc


----------



## Markymark (14 Jan 2015)

..and is speed an issue here? The OP was on a fast stretch of road, not in a town, not in a 30.

If speed is an issue on autobahns, why is the safety record there so good and why is there no real correlation between speed limits and injury rates on motorways across the world?

AGAIN, I'm not talking about in town where I agree, 20mph would be appropriate.


----------



## glenn forger (14 Jan 2015)

Motorways, who cares, they can kill themselves all day long so long as no innocents get hurt. 20mph zones have been a stunning success in the capital, so much so that they're bing rolled out to Islington, The City, Southwark, Camden etc etc. Casualties plummet and the roads are far more pleasant and safer.


----------



## Markymark (14 Jan 2015)

Ah, so your posts are irrelevant to the OP which is talking about speeds on faster roads.

I would love to see a blanket enforced 20mph across London.


----------



## glenn forger (14 Jan 2015)

I'm not addressing the OP, I'm addressing the numpty who reckons speeding isn't dangerous.


----------



## Markymark (14 Jan 2015)

..and sometimes it isn't.


----------



## glenn forger (14 Jan 2015)

And remember there DOES NOT have to be a fatality, or any casualty at all, for speeding to be anti-social and aggressive and intimidating:

Speeding is top of the league when it comes to antisocial behaviour, a University of Reading study has shown. Thames Valley Police approached psychologists at the University of Reading and asked them to analyse the British Crime Survey - which considers the concerns of more than 17,000 people across the UK. Speeding traffic was rated as a significantly greater problem than all other antisocial behaviours, with 43% of the population regarded speeding traffic as a 'very' or 'fairly big' problem in their area. 

http://www.reading.ac.uk/news-and-events/releases/PR3936.aspx


----------



## raleighnut (14 Jan 2015)

IMO all residential streets should be limited to 20MPH but motorways are a different case altogether. However for the speed limit to be raised we would have to revise our woefully inadequate MOT standards, ban 'remould' tyres and raise the standard of driver competence.
I know several people who should never be allowed behind the wheel of any motorised vehicle, most often due to accepting 'lifts' from them.


----------



## Phaeton (14 Jan 2015)

Using the assumption that Wikipedia is correct.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_speed_limits_in_the_United_Kingdom
Says "Since 1965 the maximum speed limit on any UK road has been 70 mph (113 km/h). This limit now only applies to otherwise unrestricted motorways and dual-carriageways, and only to *cars(including car-derived vans) up to 2 tonnes maximum laden weight (MLW),* to motorcycles, to buses, coaches and minibuses up to 12 metres (39 ft) in length and to goods vehicles not exceeding 7.5 tonnes MLW."

And also from the same site
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce_Phantom_(2003)
Says "The Phantom is 1.63 m (64.2 in) tall, 1.99 m (78.3 in) wide, 5.83 m (229.5 in) long, weighs *2,485 kg (5,478 lb)* and can accelerate to 100 km/h (62 mph) in 5.9 seconds."

So does that mean that the RR Phantom maximum speed on UK single carriageways is 40MPH?


----------



## glenn forger (14 Jan 2015)

Phaeton said:


> ^^^^^ This is the most stupid thing said in this debate, apart from "Twenty mph zones reduce collisions and injuries by up to 40%."



What's your background in road safety? You're claiming all the published studies are wrong and you're right?


----------



## raleighnut (14 Jan 2015)

Phaeton said:


> Using the assumption that Wikipedia is correct.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_speed_limits_in_the_United_Kingdom
> Says "Since 1965 the maximum speed limit on any UK road has been 70 mph (113 km/h). This limit now only applies to otherwise unrestricted motorways and dual-carriageways, and only to *cars(including car-derived vans) up to 2 tonnes maximum laden weight (MLW),* to motorcycles, to buses, coaches and minibuses up to 12 metres (39 ft) in length and to goods vehicles not exceeding 7.5 tonnes MLW."
> ...


No it means the Rolls Royce is a goods vehicle.  EDIT- or a bus.


----------



## Phaeton (14 Jan 2015)

raleighnut said:


> IMO all residential streets should be limited to 20MPH


No argument from me on this one as long as it also includes city centres



raleighnut said:


> but motorways are a different case altogether. However for the speed limit to be raised we would have to revise our woefully inadequate MOT standards, ban 'remould' tyres.


However I do fell this is claptrap, cars are far safer than they were 50 years old when it was restricted, if you ban remoulds, then you will remove all HGV's & most forms of motorsport including F1, there is nothing wrong with MOT's or remoulds.



raleighnut said:


> and raise the standard of driver competence


No argument on this one either


----------



## Phaeton (14 Jan 2015)

glenn forger said:


> What's your background in road safety? You're claiming all the published studies are wrong and you're right?


I think you are getting delusionary, you're arguing with yourself


----------



## glenn forger (14 Jan 2015)

Phaeton said:


> However I do fell this is claptrap, cars are far safer than they were 50 years old when it was restricted




Unfortunately drivers are still just as rubbish.


----------



## glenn forger (14 Jan 2015)

Phaeton said:


> ^^^^^ This is the most stupid thing said in this debate, apart from "Twenty mph zones reduce collisions and injuries by up to 40%."



I'm not expecting a great deal from a bloke who can't spell the country or city he lives in, but what makes you think this?


----------



## oldfatfool (14 Jan 2015)

glenn forger said:


> I'm not addressing the OP, I'm addressing the numpty who reckons speeding isn't dangerous.


As a numpty I would like to point out that I am only pointing out that "speeding" is being arbitarily defined by a symbol on a road sign and that figure is inconsistant across the board (or borders in this case). How 71 mph can be classed as speeding and critically dangerous on a well lit 3 lane carriageway at 2am in the morning with no other traffic and yet 150 mph+ be deemed as not speeding on a two lane carriageway riddled with traffic and HGV limited to 100kph often taking up both of those lanes. 

Whilst you won't like this arguement I would contest that continental drivers (with the exception of the Belgiums) are much more observant, careful and courteous on the autobahn precisely because of the vast speed differentials possible, whilst in this UK drivers tend to be more laapzidazzical. I know I am concentrating on my driving, the position of myself and other road users, hazard perception and the condition of my vehicle to a much higher level when driving in Europe (admittedly not the correct thing but its a fact) and maybe it is therefore due to higher speeds that the autobahns are safer.

The same can also be said for the French autoroutes and Italian autostrada with their 130kph limits, both of which reduce in the event of rain or fog. A situation that doesn't occur in the UK where the 70mph applies (in most instances) regardless of the weather. This goes to prove my assertation that it is inappropriate speed that is dangerous ie in the UK and not Speed on its own. It is not the gun that kills, it is the person pulling the trigger. Speed doesn't kill, it is the stopping that is the problem


----------



## glenn forger (14 Jan 2015)

You've changed your argument. First you claimed that speeding isn't dangerous, then you rephrase your argument to say that 1mph above the posted limit is "critically dangerous". Nobody said that. There is a law, there will always be a cut-off point. You would never be charged for 71mph anyway, let alone your straw man assertion.

The dangerousness of speed isn't defined by the number on a sign. The dangerousness of speeding is shown in basic human physiology. The higher the speed, the more likely a crash and the more severe the injury. Pretty basic stuff.


----------



## raleighnut (14 Jan 2015)

Phaeton said:


> No argument from me on this one as long as it also includes city centres
> 
> 
> However I do fell this is claptrap, cars are far safer than they were 50 years old when it was restricted, if you ban remoulds, then you will remove all HGV's & most forms of motorsport including F1, there is nothing wrong with MOT's or remoulds.
> ...


As a former mechanic all MOT testing should be done at independent testing stations and not by 'garages' where the tester can be slipped a 'bung' to pass a dodgy vehicle (it does still happen to my certain knowledge)


----------



## Phaeton (14 Jan 2015)

glenn forger said:


> I'm not expecting a great deal from a bloke who can't spell the country or city he lives in, but what makes you think this?


Let it go, you've already made the same reply in 3 other posts, if I was black that would be racism, just because I'm dyslexic you can get away with it.


----------



## Ern1e (15 Jan 2015)

raleighnut said:


> As a former mechanic all MOT testing should be done at independent testing stations and not by 'garages' where the tester can be slipped a 'bung' to pass a dodgy vehicle (it does still happen to my certain knowledge)


I agree like the test stations for hgv's driver has to stay in the vehicle once it's in the lane. Not much chance to "bung" anyone it's a whole line of guys testing it.


----------



## StuartG (15 Jan 2015)

Phaeton said:


> However I do fell this is claptrap, cars are far safer than they were 50 years old when it was restricted


They are, on average, much heavier. That's a lot more kinetic energy to get lost when things go pear shaped. The physics has not changed nor the amount of brainpower in attempting to mitigate the disaster.
Reduce the speed and you reduce the KSI particularly for the most vulnerable road users.
But this is probably not relevant in a fact free, unresearched and evidence denying universe. So carry on ...


----------



## Phaeton (15 Jan 2015)

StuartG said:


> They are, on average, much heavier. That's a lot more kinetic energy to get lost when things go pear shaped. The physics has not changed nor the amount of brainpower in attempting to mitigate the disaster.
> Reduce the speed and you reduce the KSI particularly for the most vulnerable road users.
> But this is probably not relevant in a fact free, unresearched and evidence denying universe. So carry on ...


Are you & Glenn the same person, you're both arguing with yourself on points that you seem to be making up, what are heavier, modern cars over older cars? no concrete evidence to support this but I suspect not, with the use of new materials & the adoption of crumple zones rather than thick steel. 

No-one is also arguing that inappropriate speed is dangerous, but speed per-say is not, I'm sure there is an upper limit at which point the human body cannot survive, although this is likely to be more to do with acceleration rather than out & out speed. It is bizarrely rapid retardation not speed that causes the most injuries, although being a clever little chucky you probably knew that.

Okay here's a challenge then, name me one person that has been killed by speed & not the amphetamine type


----------



## oldfatfool (15 Jan 2015)

glenn forger said:


> claptrap



\offensive comment likely to lead to a ban  Now where is the ignore button.


----------



## StuartG (15 Jan 2015)

Phaeton said:


> Are you & Glenn the same person, you're both arguing with yourself on points that you seem to be making up, what are heavier, modern cars over older cars? no concrete evidence to support this but I suspect not, with the use of new materials & the adoption of crumple zones rather than thick steel.
> 
> No-one is also arguing that inappropriate speed is dangerous, but speed per-say is not, I'm sure there is an upper limit at which point the human body cannot survive, although this is likely to be more to do with acceleration rather than out & out speed. It is bizarrely rapid retardation not speed that causes the most injuries, although being a clever little chucky you probably knew that.
> 
> Okay here's a challenge then, name me one person that has been killed by speed & not the amphetamine type


Where to start? Let's start at the end. No I can't give you the names of the 5 lads who died at the bottom of the road when their speeding hothatch lost control in a 30mph area. That's cos they don't answer. Sorry. Oh and the speed was appropriate or the driver wouldn't have been doing it would he? Just that appropriate wasn't when it went pear shaped. Perspectives change.
Weight of cars? Well go check the spec of the Golf Mk1 , Mk2 et al and surprise me.
Speed per-say is not. Yep the carefully researched, peer reviewed reports are wrong. Why did they waste that money when they could just have taken your word for it. Oh by the way when a little lad runs out in front of a car passing a school the result will be same if it was travelling at 30 or 20 mph? How does that work? Can you bend time too?
I must resist the temptation to try and see what other remarkable fact free stuff you can come out with. Well until you can produce some evidence to refute the paper Glenn quoted or back up your rather incredible claims with some credible evidence.

No we are not the same person and have had a spectacular row in the past 'cos we usually have different viewpoints and temperament. But clever of you to unite us in a common cause for common sense! And are we really both making up that BMJ report? Prove it!

EDIT: According to Wikipedia the Golf Mk1 was 790kg, the Mk7 was 1395kg. Tonight's mastermind question is which is the heavier? Take your time ...


----------



## Phaeton (16 Jan 2015)

Stuart, I'm a little, well actually not a little, I'm actually a lot confused at what point you are arguing against, what point do you think I was or clearly very inefficiently was trying to make?

Your example above of the tragic loss of life, I don't know the specifics, but I'm sure that the inappropriate speed was a factor, again I'm not sure what point you are now trying to make.

Just so we are on the same page, I would be happy & compliant that around all schools & vulnerable areas the speed limit be reduced to 20mph, I would also advocate that anyone breaking this limit face severe fines/bans. I also believe that the fines/bans on drivers/riders in 30mph should be increased dramatically. I am fed-up of following cars down the de-restricted road into our village at 40mph only to see that when we get to the 30mph limit they speed away from me & continue at 40mph whilst I drop to the limit.

As I type this I think it's symantic's, I believe that speed is not dangerous, but inappropriate speed is, which could be 5 or 10 or lower mph on a motorway dependant on the circumstances, you on the the other hand appear that all speed is dangerous at all times, how you move around the world I'm unsure.

With regards to weight you clearly are correct in that instance, however that to me is a simplistic view, you are not taking into account air bags, ABS braking, traction control, tyre performance, geometry changes in suspension, changes in external surface matter. Were I to be in an accident in either car, I would prefer it to be the later model not the earlier one, but how that would reflect on somebody on the outside involved in an accident I'm not qualified to answer.

Last point, I am not aware (which doesn't mean it hasn't happened) of any car causing an accident, it is normally the driver or the person responsible for the maintenance (or lack thereof) that actually caused the accident, the car was just the vehicle (no pun intended) for the accident to happen.


----------



## Phaeton (16 Jan 2015)

Maybe if you opened your eyes & actually read what I put them maybe just maybe you would know the answer


----------



## Pumpkin the robot (16 Jan 2015)

So does inappropriate speed only become so when it results in an accident? Any other time is fine?


----------



## Phaeton (16 Jan 2015)

User said:


> I did read it thanks. As you declared yourself unqualified to answer, I invited you to say which you would rather. You must have an inkling.


I would rather not be hit by either, but as you appear to wish I was then please invent a scenario & I will give you an answer, because depending on the scenario the answer might be different


Martin Archer said:


> So does inappropriate speed only become so when it results in an accident? Any other time is fine?


No, just like behaviour inappropriate is inappropriate if it is inappropriate, otherwise it wouldn't be inappropriate would it.


----------



## Pumpkin the robot (16 Jan 2015)

So how do you decide?


----------



## Phaeton (16 Jan 2015)

Martin Archer said:


> So how do you decide?


Well hopefully you would use your brain to do that, but you decide, travelling at 20mph down a very busy high street full of pedestrians or travelling down a motorway at 85mph at 2am on a clear night with no other cars in the vicinity, both or neither could be inappropriate, although I suspect the first would be under most circumstances & the second not so, but not actually being there & being able to take in all the surroundings it's impossible to make that judgement.


User said:


> No, that is OK you can make your own up or not, as you see fit.


Thank you for your permission!


----------



## MacB (16 Jan 2015)

Phaeton said:


> Well hopefully you would use your brain to do that, but you decide, travelling at 20mph down a very busy high street full of pedestrians or travelling down a motorway at 85mph at 2am on a clear night with no other cars in the vicinity, both or neither could be inappropriate



and that's the problem I have with speeding, safespeed, appropriate, etc, etc - you are making a personal choice the consequences of which are often not limited to yourself. If you want to go jump out of planes, off cliffs, whatever it takes to 'get your speed on'...I'm cool with that if it involves just you. As soon as you want to 'get your speed on' on public roads, well I'm not ok with that.


----------



## benb (16 Jan 2015)

The thing is, whilst some drivers can probably safely exceed the posted limit, I don't trust the majority of drivers to be able to make that decision.
Virtually everyone who bangs on about "appropriate speed" is basically saying "F U, I just want to drive at whatever speed I want and damn the law"

So the speed limits aren't there for someone like @Phaeton who is obviously a driving god, the skill of which us mere mortals can only dream of, but for the 90% of drivers who are simply not competent to decide when it is safe to exceed the limit.

In any case, all other things being equal, the slower you drive the safer. Obviously there needs to be a balance between safety and people actually being able to move around.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (16 Jan 2015)

glenn forger said:


> I'm not expecting a great deal from a bloke who can't spell ...



Glenn, even if your own spelling was error-free (which it isn't), it's a weak basis on which to judge the merits of the other person's viewpoint.

GC


----------



## glenn forger (16 Jan 2015)

Fair enough, spelling aside the fact he rubbished the claim while offering nothing to support his and ignored subsequent questions demonstrate his posts are worth nothing.


----------



## Phaeton (16 Jan 2015)

benb said:


> So the speed limits aren't there for someone like @Phaeton who is obviously a driving god, the skill of which us mere mortals can only dream of, but for the 90% of drivers who are simply not competent to decide when it is safe to exceed the limit.


You have no idea what I drive like, but just to put you straight, in nearly 40 years of driving & well over 500,000 miles in many countries, I have never received a speeding ticket, in fact if I did I would not be able to renew my membership to the IAM. One of the biggest reasons is I do not speed on public roads, I save that for the track.


----------



## Phaeton (16 Jan 2015)

glenn forger said:


> Fair enough, spelling aside the fact he rubbished the claim while offering nothing to support his and ignored subsequent questions demonstrate his posts are worth nothing.


Because you were arguing a point that I never made.


----------



## glenn forger (16 Jan 2015)

Phaeton said:


> ^^^^^ This is the most sensible thing said in this debate
> 
> 
> ^^^^^ This is the most stupid thing said in this debate, apart from "Twenty mph zones reduce collisions and injuries by up to 40%."



Why do you think that?

Fourth time.


----------



## Phaeton (16 Jan 2015)

glenn forger said:


> *apart from "Twenty mph zones reduce collisions and injuries by up to 40%."*


I'm agreeing with you!

Tell you what, forget it, go find another worthless youtube video to post


----------



## glenn forger (16 Jan 2015)

What were you calling "stupid" then? Your posts aren't terribly clear.


----------



## StuartG (16 Jan 2015)

Phaeton said:


> Stuart, I'm a little, well actually not a little, I'm actually a lot confused at what point you are arguing against, what point do you think I was or clearly very inefficiently was trying to make?


I think there are two main areas of difference.

*1) The concept of appropriate speed*. Who decides what is appropriate? Humans behind the wheel do get it seriously wrong. Otherwise far fewer cars would leave the road in an unscheduled manoeuvre. The most common excuse when caught speeding is "I didn't realise officer". Mr Fry's friend was apparently confused that 100 in an Aston Martin feels like 70 in other cars. People have a poor idea of the distance they should keep between vehicles because they are poor at connecting thinking/braking distances to speed. The fact that kinetic energy of a vehicle increases with the square of speed and weight - and that this is what causes the damage in a collision. And the severity of damage is also not linear. Like bike helmets cars may have an 'egg' shell which provides protection as long as it is not breached. But when it is it may collapse catastrophically offering no protection at all. I think you agree that posted speed limits are a blanket maximum and of little use when if a carefully calculated appropriate speed drops below that. In an earlier life I worked on simulations to spot roads where the layout sent the wrong signals to the driver's brain so they would miscalculate what was 'safe' - typically when there was a downhill but the driver was cued to see it as an uphill.

*2) How limits should be set. *There is no safe speed only what rate of KSIs you are prepared to accept. You usually start from the current position. The BMJ paper which appears to be reasonably sound indicates that if we can drop average speeds in residential streets by 10mph (27mph in 30 limit) to (17mph in 20mph) the KSI rate should drop by around 40%. That would be an achievement much greater than any other collision reduction initiative. Its a trade off in lifesaving v timewasting. Many of us think it a reasonable deal. Some may argue for more or less but we should be deciding on the best evidence available. When it comes to Motorways the sweet spot for maximum traffic flow is around 50mph. That's why in peak traffic flows 'managed' motorways lower the limit to 50. This has been known for 50 years but it isn't intuitive to the average motorist that he might get there faster if he goes slower. I am arguing that a combination of modelling and the careful analysis of evidence may be a better guide to manage roads than driver perception.

In another sphere - aircraft accidents are more likely to be caused by the pilot than the plane. Airbus was the first in introducing managed flying. It is hard (but not impossible) to fly the plane outside its designed envelope. Here is a lovely example which may be a guide to what driving a Google Car may feel like. Hope you enjoy it:


----------



## Wobblers (16 Jan 2015)

Phaeton said:


> Because you were arguing a point that I never made.



You've repeatedly stated that "inappropriate" speed is the problem. I'd be interested to find out exactly "appropriate" speeding gets round the problem of physics, given that:

The time window in which a correction or response to some unexpected event can be made decreases linearly with velocity
Cornering forces between tyre and road surface increase with the square of the velocity, so that the available safety margin diminishes very rapidly as speed increases
Kinetic energy, and hence damage done to self and _innocent bystanders _increases with the square of the velocity


----------



## green1 (17 Jan 2015)

User said:


> And if you are in another car, do you want to be hit by the lighter version or the heavier?


Depends which one has crumple zones and has been designed to deform during an impact rather than to be a solid as possible.


----------

