Reduced speed limit

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

col

Legendary Member
Rhythm Thief said:
I've always driven without much recourse to the brakes. But I was talking to an HGV driver assessor at work the other day and he was telling me that, because it's quicker and cheaper to reline brakes than to service a gearbox, drivers now are being taught to use the brakes to slow down and block change down the gears when the vehicle is stopped. I couldn't drive like that.


Do Hgv's not have retarders? This was the first thing I was taught when braking on a bus.
 

Saddle bum

Über Member
Location
Kent
This proposal will only apply to England.
 

Night Train

Maker of Things
col said:
The idea that the monority cause the accidents is true, and that minority are who all this is about. What other minority is there? the impatiant, the drugged up drivers, the inexperienced, they are the ones who misjudge a bend or an overtake and also the conditions.
It is the minority that cause accidents but there are so many sub sets of 'minority' now that it feels like they collectively outnumber the good drivers that don't cause accidents.

It is true that lower speeds will reduce fuel consumption, wear and tear, the damage due to an accident, the level of injury in in accident.
But, in my opinion, reduced speed does not mean reduced accidents, just less expensive ones. Nor does it lead to better driving. Better driving leads to reduced speeds and reduced accidents.

If the campaigners and Government really want to reduce accidents then they need to bite the bullet and do the unthinkable. Make the driving test really severly difficult with a huge emphasis on safety and then re test frequently.:biggrin:
However, I think most people would be too afraid of failing such a test to allow it to happen. I'm not. If I can't pass a driving test now then I shouldn't be on the road.
 

col

Legendary Member
Night Train said:
It is the minority that cause accidents but there are so many sub sets of 'minority' now that it feels like they collectively outnumber the good drivers that don't cause accidents.

It is true that lower speeds will reduce fuel consumption, wear and tear, the damage due to an accident, the level of injury in in accident.
But, in my opinion, reduced speed does not mean reduced accidents, just less expensive ones. Nor does it lead to better driving. Better driving leads to reduced speeds and reduced accidents.

If the campaigners and Government really want to reduce accidents then they need to bite the bullet and do the unthinkable. Make the driving test really severly difficult with a huge emphasis on safety and then re test frequently.:biggrin:
However, I think most people would be too afraid of failing such a test to allow it to happen. I'm not. If I can't pass a driving test now then I shouldn't be on the road.

I agree it wont make any difference to the accident rate, a motorway smash up is rare in comparison to someone leaving the road on a bend or hitting some one else, or a bad overtake or pass, or just not looking when they move ect. And then there are just plain simple mistakes, done at all speeds.Nothing the government or any amount of training is going to solve.
 
Location
Rammy
Night Train said:
I would say that 'muppet' and 'general public' are interchangeable here.

A good driver can see the point of reducing speed and a good driver will use the correct and safest speed even if there were no signed or legal restriction on speed at all. It is the 'muppets' who drive as fast as they can get away with regardless of conditions.

walled in (built in old railway cutting) 6 mile long dual carageway with full barriers has a 40mph limit, why? it would easily be safe to do 50 or 60 along it and put up a "slow, roundabout ahead" sign like the rest of the road has (this stretch is as it nears the city centre)

Rhythm Thief said:
I've always driven without much recourse to the brakes. But I was talking to an HGV driver assessor at work the other day and he was telling me that, because it's quicker and cheaper to reline brakes than to service a gearbox, drivers now are being taught to use the brakes to slow down and block change down the gears when the vehicle is stopped. I couldn't drive like that.

i got told off for overuse of the gears when doing my mini bus test a few years ago, i explained that it was better to do it using both incase the brakes give way / slippy conditions - he laughed

two weeks later we got a fine for a broken gearbox on a bus that had been hired, i'd brought it off the motorway and slowed and stopped it on the gears since the brakes hadn't done anything, I also drove it round wales with minimal brakes (cold was affecting them and giving them an on / off action) before finishing the gearbox / clutch off coming off the motorway on the way home again.

the fine never got payed
 

Night Train

Maker of Things
Pushing tin said:
walled in (built in old railway cutting) 6 mile long dual carageway with full barriers has a 40mph limit, why? it would easily be safe to do 50 or 60 along it and put up a "slow, roundabout ahead" sign like the rest of the road has (this stretch is as it nears the city centre)
Perhaps other roads at the roundabout in this case are at the slower speed, also the road is nearing the city centre and it may be prudent to slow drivers down early to get them used to a slower speed before they find 30mph feels like they are standing still, maybe there is a noise issue with nearby housing, maybe the road surface has been built to a slower speed rating, may be there is a local micro climate issue like gusting winds, maybe there are foot paths nearby and pedestrians may cross, perhaos there has been a history of speeding/racing/accidents on that stretch.

Without being there I could say why it is signed at 40. It may not be an apparent one, it may even be historic.
 

TheDoctor

Noble and true, with a heart of steel
Moderator
Location
The TerrorVortex
Maybe whoever's responsible thinks that hitting a brick wall at 60 mph isn't so very safe?
 
Top Bottom