Speeding is endemic in this country, what can be done about it?

magicbastarder

Wilmol wrote: »

Almost always you will see train type convoys with a driver at the top going 60 kmh in an 80 dragging other wagons (cars) behind unless you drive at midnight.

uh, no. just no. this is very much the exception.

Wilmol

magicbastarder wrote: »

uh, no. just no. this is very much the exception.

If you did any driving then you'd know the truth.

magicbastarder

typically, it's the person driving at the limit who has the convoy of people behind them who want to exceed it.

liamog

magicbastarder wrote: »

uh, no. just no. this is very much the exception.

I see it a fair bit on the 80km/h regional roads near me. They're the same people who drive at 70km/h on the 60km/h road. They do 70km/h without a care for the speed limit or road conditions.

Isambard

liamog wrote: »

I see it a fair bit on the 80km/h regional roads near me. They're the same people who drive at 70km/h on the 60km/h road. They do 70km/h without a care for the speed limit or road conditions.

this is the case in my experience, the majority of drivers travel a little under the speed limit and a few a lot under.

buffalo

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Many roads are designed to encourage speeds faster than the speed limit. Big wide open dual carriageways create a perception that it is a safe road. Stick some pedestrains on the adjacent paths and cyclists in the adjacent bus lanes and the risks increase so the limit is lowered
However, the perception when driving that it is a safe road remains.

I live near one of these stretches - a 60km/h limit dual carriageway where 80km/h is more common, and I've seen plenty of drivers at 100km/h. I've never come across an accident, so it must be reasonably 'safe' to do this, even in this morning's mist.

However, for all the talk in this thread about road safety and being able to exceed the speed limit, I see very little consideration of non-safety factors.

The noise is constant and wearing. We can't sleep with windows open on hot nights. I can't have a phone call in the garden. It's hard to have a conversation while walking along the road.

It's also very difficult to cross, to the point where the local council refuse to put in a pedestrian crossing because drivers go so fast that it could cause an accident. So it cuts part of our community off from the rest of the area.

For those advocating going above the set limits, are those factors you consider?

Ash.J.Williams

speeding will exist as long as we sell cars that go faster than the speed limit, it's really a no brainer

liamog

buffalo wrote: »

For those advocating going above the set limits, are those factors you consider?

I don't think 60km/h dual carriageways should exist, it's a failure of design when you end up with a road like that, and it's not surprising that it results in speeding.

Uncle Pierre

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Except I didn't say that "98% of drivers are speeding". I said "98% of drivers are speeding on urban roads". I didn't give the full clarification of 30 kpmh roads and 50 kmph roads, and I didn't give the full research methodology of how it was measured, but I'm not writing an academic paper here.

And it's precisely by omitting the fact that the 98% figure refers only to one type of urban road that you've misrepresented the statistics.

You don't need to be writing an academic paper to make sure that what you're actually writing is correct.

AndrewJRenko

Uncle Pierre wrote: »

And it's precisely by omitting the fact that the 98% figure refers only to one type of urban road that you've misrepresented the statistics.

You don't need to be writing an academic paper to make sure that what you're actually writing is correct.

You'd want to sort yourself out with your "98% of drivers are speeding" misrepresentation of my alleged misrepresentation. You don't need to be writing an academic paper to make sure that what you're actually writing is correct

07Lapierre

beggars_bush wrote: »

Smaller cars
Cars have gotten huge in the last 20 years

Cars are bigger due to emissions and H&S regulations. (All passengers have to have their own seat and seat belt, so no more cramming kids into the boot! )

Bigger cars allow bigger crumple zones and stronger safety cages. Air bags, Power steering, electric windows, air conditioning etc. all use more electric power, so you need a bigger alternator and a bigger engine to cope with the extra weight and extra power demanded.

Not to mention stricter emission regulations and the need for catalytic converters, gas recycling technology etc. All this extra equipment/technology means bigger cars overall.

Uncle Pierre

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

You'd want to sort yourself out with your "98% of drivers are speeding" misrepresentation of my alleged misrepresentation. You don't need to be writing an academic paper to make sure that what you're actually writing is correct

LOL. :D:D

If we're playing tit-for-tat, then how about these other two by yourself?

There's a lot more %s over 50% than under 50% un the results.

As you've shown yourself, 2 out of every 3 drivers surveyed was speeding.

Anyway, on the bright side....if you feel that I've misrepresented your misrepresentation of things, and you now see the consequences of any such misrepresentation by myself, then perhaps I'm getting through to you after all.

ianobrien

07Lapierre wrote: »

Cars are bigger due to emissions and H&S regulations. (All passengers have to have their own seat and seat belt, so no more cramming kids into the boot! )

Bigger cars allow bigger crumple zones and stronger safety cages. Air bags, Power steering, electric windows, air conditioning etc. all use more electric power, so you need a bigger alternator and a bigger engine to cope with the extra weight and extra power demanded.

Not to mention stricter emission regulations and the need for catalytic converters, gas recycling technology etc. All this extra equipment/technology means bigger cars overall.

Also cars have gotten a lot more powerful. 45 years ago, an Escort RS2000 (with it's 100hp engine) was considered a very fast car. Now we have "basic" supermini's with more power. The modern equivalent of the Escort RS2000, the Focus RS had IIRC about 350HP.

Granted the newer car has a lot more weight to carry.

Duckjob

ianobrien wrote: »

Granted the newer car has a lot more weight to carry.

..Which means also a lot more kinetic energy to dissapate into surrounding objects and people when things go wrong.

AndrewJRenko

Uncle Pierre wrote: »

LOL. :D:D

If we're playing tit-for-tat, then how about these other two by yourself?

There's a lot more %s over 50% than under 50% un the results.

As you've shown yourself, 2 out of every 3 drivers surveyed was speeding.

Anyway, on the bright side....if you feel that I've misrepresented your misrepresentation of things, and you now see the consequences of any such misrepresentation by myself, then perhaps I'm getting through to you after all.

One of those two was a faithful representation of your misrepresentation of the data, so really, go look in the mirror. Take the stone out of thine own eye, brother (or uncle).

If you're going to nitpick at others, you'd really want to have your own act together first.

Uncle Pierre

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

One of those two was a faithful representation of your misrepresentation of the data, so really, go look in the mirror. Take the stone out of thine own eye, brother (or uncle).

If you're going to nitpick at others, you'd really want to have your own act together first.

Not at all.

What actually happened was that before I could determine from the full report that you helpfully posted the link for (many thanks! ) that the residential roads surveyed were themselves all in urban areas, I calculated that the proportion of drivers deemed to be speeding on urban roads was 65%.

You then claimed that I'd shown that two-thirds of drivers were speeding. But omitting the words "on urban roads" changes the meaning significantly, to imply that two-thirds of all drivers were speeding, which is clearly not the case.

This charade has descended into such farce that you're now even misrepresenting your own misrepresentation. I grow weary of it.

Goodnight.

magicbastarder

07Lapierre wrote: »

Cars are bigger due to emissions and H&S regulations.

yes, but this is not the sole reason, which is worth pointing out. you did mention it, but there's a legion of other things which have added weight. A/C, electric motors for all sorts of things.

the rover 3500 - a V8 3.4L four door - weighs over 100kg less than my car, a 1.2l four pot octavia. i know we're not really comparing like with like there, but it was the first comparison which came to hand,

FishOnABike

magicbastarder wrote: »

uh, no. just no. this is very much the exception.

There's plenty of numptys around that trundle along at 60kmh in an 80kmh zone and gormlessly continue at the same 60kmh through every village with a 50kmh limit they pass through.

AndrewJRenko

Uncle Pierre wrote: »

Not at all.

What actually happened was that before I could determine from the full report that you helpfully posted the link for (many thanks! ) that the residential roads surveyed were themselves all in urban areas, I calculated that the proportion of drivers deemed to be speeding on urban roads was 65%.

You then claimed that I'd shown that two-thirds of drivers were speeding. But omitting the words "on urban roads" changes the meaning significantly, to imply that two-thirds of all drivers were speeding, which is clearly not the case.

This charade has descended into such farce that you're now even misrepresenting your own misrepresentation. I grow weary of it.

Goodnight.

As you admitted yourself, you did "actually overstates the extent of speeding in urban areas". If you're going to clai
claim the statistics police role, you really shouldn't be making such basic mistakes yourself, and you definitely shouldn't be having a go at those who make the mistake of believing your mistake.

Some standards, please.

liamog

liamog wrote: »

A Danish study conducted in 2007 found that up to 90km/h safe braking distances remained consistent with their older guidelines, but as speed increases braking distances are now much shorter, for instance a car at 130km/h can now safely stop in 25% less distance compared to when guidelines were set.
If we believe that speed limits should be correlated to effective reaction and stopping distances, then it means that a modern car at 150km/h is as safe as a 1980's car travelling at 120km/h.

In 1980s a driver probably wasn't looking at his phone

Uncle Pierre

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

As you admitted yourself, you did "actually overstates the extent of speeding in urban areas". If you're going to clai
claim the statistics police role, you really shouldn't be making such basic mistakes yourself, and you definitely shouldn't be having a go at those who make the mistake of believing your mistake.

Some standards, please.

It's terrible how I repeatedly have to explain things to you in such basic building blocks. I suspect this is a true case of "none so blind as those who will not see".

Initial calculations that yielded the figure of 65% speeding on urban roads were based on the only data/information I had at the time, which was the table itself. Although I suspected that the figures for residential areas also referred to urban areas, I could not include them in the calculations, as I could not be sure of this. There are residential areas with lower speed limits in rural villages too, you know.

I then received further information when you helpfully posted the link to the full report (again, many thanks. ). This confirmed that the residential areas surveyed were themselves within urban areas, and this enabled a recalculation for total figures in urban areas, yielding a result of 52% deemed speeding.

This happens regularly in research and analysis of any subject or topic, where new information comes to light, enabling recalculation, reassessment, and the drawing of new conclusions.

A simple example - if you told me only that England's results so far at Euro 2020 included 1-0, 0-0, and 1-0 scorelines, I would infer that they have scored two goals to date. If you then added "oh, and then they beat Germany 2-0", I would recalculate and conclude they have actually scored four. So while the initial conclusion of two goals scored would understate the true number, it would still be correct with the information I had at the time.

Likewise, my calculations referring to levels of speeding in urban areas were both correct at the times they were done, given the levels of verified information I had available to me at those times.

However, at no stage was it correct for you to make a blanket statement of "98% of drivers speeding on urban roads", given that you at all times had at least (if not more) information available to you than I had to me.

Doing so is no more valid than somebody else claiming "only 5% of drivers speeding on urban roads" if they happened to cherry-pick the figure for "Residential - 50", since we now know that those residential roads are themselves urban roads.

It was also incorrect for you to transform my initial conclusion of "65% of drivers speeding on urban roads" into a blanket "two-thirds of drivers speeding".

Incidentally, I note that you have so far not made any attempted defence of your other erroneous claim, that there are many more "percentage speeding" figures above 50% than under it.

Anyway...I suspect I'm not the only one here who has grown weary of this merry-go-round.

Good day.

Alwandy

Please don't flame me, just found this related to some people statement
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWmEbbPlQ_c

Yes they're super expensive cars... It doesn't relate to current cars