[wagolynn]

80% drivers break speed limit.
I found this on the RAC news. What does this mean?

http://www.rac.co.uk/know-how/motori...-speed-limits/

If you have a law that no one takes notice of is it a bad law?

If accident levels are falling and the majority are ignoring speed limits, does that mean the arguments put forward for speed limits are invalid?

If everyone went into zombie mode and kept to the speed limits, would accidents reduce?

[Snowball]

The claim that 80% of drivers break the speed limit should not be taken as a genuine figure with only 3,280 drivers questioned. Of these, how many exceeded the limit substantially, and how many drove only 2 or 3 mph above the limit. Some do this based on the 10% error factor relating to sreedometer accuracy.
This is probably eroneous with modern car electronics. I can remember reading motoring car tests back in the 50's, and the speedometers were always reported to be accurate at 30 mph, dropping to progressively read under true speed as the higher speeds were recorded.

I don't believe that the overall accident rates have reduced. With improvements in vehicle technology, perhaps the major ones have reduced, but many of the smaller collisions, which do not get reported when nobody is injured, have probably increased. Minor shunts are often dealt with privately by the involved drivers; being cheaper that way, and not having their risk factor records raised.

Regarding the suggestions that speed limits on M-ways and D.C.W's should be raised, I think this is very unlikely to happen. In recent years, driving standards have visibly dropped and, with the increasing congestion, raised speed limits would produce worse accidents with more fatalities.

Drive along any of these roads at 70 mph, and a large volume of the traffic will pass you at significantly higher speeds.
The police (and government) are quite aware of this fact, and know only too well that an increase to 80 mph would automatically be ignored by an extra 10 mph plus on top of the 80 mph.

Another factor that has not been lost on the government, is that higher speeds produce less mpg. (adversely affecting the global warming claims). It has even been reported that, if everyone adhered to the speed limit, it would have the effect of taking one million cars off the road.
So the government, the environmentalists and the police are armed with several arguments against raising speed limits. Indeed, as congestion increases further, it wouldn't surprise me if they were reduced.

[98selitb]

Also, it's impossible to know how many people in the survey have told the truth and how many have not.

I think it's silly, all these surveys they do with a few hundred or thousand people, and they take those results to claim that represents the entire country. The only accurate way to know the full story would be to ask every single person in the country, and even then you can't guarantee the honesty of the replies.

[Rolebama]

I cannot personally agree with that figure of 80%. I reckon it is much higher. How else could you explain that every time I go out, sticking to the speed limits, I end up with a convoy? As to the published figure, I can only assume that they have added the percentages of those who answered either 'sometimes' or 'frequently'. These words, to me, mean different things, so to add them together is just another example of twisting statistics to support a theory already expounded.

[smudger]

Quote"..If everyone went into zombie mode and kept to the speed limits, would accidents reduce? "

I think all the traffic would come to a stand still if that did happen;)

[Snowball]

Originally Posted by Rolebama

I cannot personally agree with that figure of 80%. I reckon it is much higher. How else could you explain that every time I go out, sticking to the speed limits, I end up with a convoy? As to the published figure, I can only assume that they have added the percentages of those who answered either 'sometimes' or 'frequently'. These words, to me, mean different things, so to add them together is just another example of twisting statistics to support a theory already expounded.

I go along with that view, Rolebama.
I would also add the question, "how many additional rules and regulations have been introduced into our daily lives on the basis of these often misleading statistics?"

[wagolynn]

Hmm, so if the statistics do not support our belief they are wrong, if they do they are correct. Or does it mean that we should not blindly take the figures and any conclusion drawn from them as fact but look deeper to find the motive?

Somehow, the idea that people elect to drive 10MPH above the speed limit does not ring true, I suspect that drivers select a speed at which they feel comfortable, not too much stress and safe.

Certainly, at higher speeds there is much more energy to dissipate but the outcome, in the event of a collision, appears to be much the same at 90 as at 60. The test would be I suppose, can we look at broken bodies and deduce the speed at impact.

I do agree that if we are driving in zombie mode then no matter what the speeds involved there will be collisions, other statistics appear to support the view that as the average speed falls the number of collisions increases, personal observation supports this view.

I conclude that the safety message should be along the lines that any vehicle is a potential killing machine and therefore should be driven with that in mind. If, when driving, it does not feel like work, demanding 100% concentration then stop, you are not driving you are just a passenger. I think it would be more productive for officialdom to encourage people to drive safely because everyone else is trying to do so (use the herd instinct). Rather than taking every opportunity to punish use that opportunity to teach road craft, as most of the time collisions are nothing more than lack of knowledge. There is little hope of the driving test covering more than it already does; the rest is down to experience.

[Snowball]

Originally Posted by wagolynn

Hmm,
(1) so if the statistics do not support our belief they are wrong, if they do they are correct.

(2) Or does it mean that we should not blindly take the figures and any conclusion drawn from them as fact but look deeper to find the motive?

(3) Somehow, the idea that people elect to drive 10MPH above the speed limit does not ring true,

(4) I suspect that drivers select a speed at which they feel comfortable, not too much stress and safe.

(5) the outcome, in the event of a collision, appears to be much the same at 90 as at 60.

(6) other statistics appear to support the view that as the average speed falls the number of collisions increases, personal observation supports this view.

(7) I think it would be more productive for officialdom to encourage people to drive safely because everyone else is trying to do so (use the herd instinct). Rather than taking every opportunity to punish use that opportunity to teach road craft, as most of the time collisions are nothing more than lack of knowledge.

(8)There is little hope of the driving test covering more than it already does; the rest is down to experience.

(1) I do not agree on the basis of what I believe to be correct or incorrect; it is simply a matter of applying practical commonsense. The cost of a true survey is too prohibitive, so a tongue-in-cheek result is taken from a tiny minority.

(2)True assessment of motive cannot be drawn from fictional figures.

They either elect to exceed speed limits, or just don't bother to check their speed.

(4) Sounds like an "I know best" attitude. The first signs of intentionally defying the Highway Code; which they used to gain their licence.

(5) Various factors dictate the end results of a collision but, in an exact like-for-like situation, the higher the speed then the more serious the consequences.

(6) This is very possibly because, as speed lowers, a greater percentage of drivers decide to go faster than the rest. Just watch drivers ignoring restrictions at M-way roadworks; speed cameras have to be installed despite larger than average speed signs.

(7) Encouragement starts with the driving test, which has been extended to improve standards; but it certainly isn't working. And that isn't the fault of officialdom; it is arrogant drivers.
When an RTC is due to an act that is more serious than driver error (and any act deliberately in violation of a traffic law is not driver error), then that driver (or drivers) must face the consequences. They certainly don't deserve any consideration, when their absence of consideration creates injuries, or worse.

(8) I agree with that; it is how I developed my driving skills, along with a lot more drivers who leant their "trade" during times of better and respected discipline.

[wagolynn]

Hi, snowball,
2) The body interpreting the statics will tend to bend the interpretation toward their view.

3) I would suspect that the speed in absolute terms is not relevant, when driving at such speeds the separation distance gets adjusted to a safe distance, primarily because not to do so is too stressful.

4) It could be argued that the Highway Code is someone saying ‘they know best’. It as an attempt to lay down some ground rules, but stand at a roundabout in medium to heavy traffic and think about what would happen to the traffic flow if everyone stuck rigidly to the highway code. Does the code have an answer to all entrances having a vehicle about to enter the roundabout?

5) A very good argument for driving defensively, given a chance to learn how.

6) I was really thinking of 30MPH areas, though interestingly motorways have the best accident record, according to the statistics.

7) This depends on what we are trying to do. We can try to correct errors, ignorance and misconception, thus gradually raising the overall standards, or punish drivers but not resolve the basic problem. Driving is too complex to teach in the abstract it is a process of trial and error we are constantly correcting errors. Consider negotiating a bend, we look at the bend make a judgment about speed and steering, and then we follow a reference, usually the edge of the road, adjusting the steering and speed accordingly in a continuous process until we are through the bend. The point being, we have to correct because the computation involved in calculating the required amount of steering is far too complex, there are too many variables. All that was about one bend. Right, if you agree with that then, think about heavy traffic each driver making their own judgments and making their own mistakes and all trying to adjust to everyone else’s mistakes all in their own way interpreting the highway code. It is not the place to be arguing about rights of way 30 MPH or 33 chiefly what is required is everyone to be paying attention.

8) In my formative years I do not remember greater compliance, I do remember less traffic therefore lax drivers were less of a problem. Also because cars were cruder than today driving quickly was difficult, noisy hard work and dangerous. But when you got it right, it could be fun.

[Snowball]

wagolynn, again I agree with some of your points, but not with others. This is to be expected when debating the complexities of driving behaviour.

I agree that much of the change has been brought about by the vast increase in the use of the car. When I started driving, the biggest danger was that many cars were just not truly roadworthy; but then, 50mph for anything but the newer cars was fast. From this point of view, the MoT was a God-send.

Regarding misuse of the motor vehicle, with far fewer cars and less readiness to deliberately defy the law in days gone by, change in this respect has been significant.

Of course, there will always be RTC's but, if everyone took their duty of care seriously, the majority of these would be minor incidents mainly due to inevitable human error.

What deplores me, and why I support the stiffer penalties, is the blatant and deliberate disregard for others using the roads.
The freedom to drive when and where we wish should be seen as a privilege, and respect shown for the rights of others to do the same without having to face reckless behaviour.
And for those who clearly demonstrate intentions to ignore such respect, then they should be denied that facility; by variable to permanent ban depending upon the degree of criminality.

Regards, Snowball.

[wagolynn]

Originally Posted by wagolynn

8) In my formative years I do not remember greater compliance, I do remember less traffic therefore lax drivers were less of a problem. Also because cars were cruder than today driving quickly was difficult, noisy hard work and dangerous. But when you got it right, it could be fun.

On re-reading No 8, I think I should clarify what looks to be a rash statement.
Living in the country, I was driving tractors, motorbikes and cars on private land for many years prior to venturing onto the road. We also had a disused airfield to get the youthful urge for speed out of our system, quickly finding out that speed per say is boring and expensive. But the art and science of getting from a to b quickly, safely and efficiently was interesting and satisfying, a to b may be an off road track or a longish journey. This, to be done with reasonable safety, requires understanding the characteristics and limitations of the vehicle being driven, in my view, here lies part of the problem in this cotton wool wrapped world successive administrations have tried to create. I suspect that a large proportion of today’s drivers have no-idea of the limits of their vehicles and as a consequence are un-aware when they are pushing things too far. This sounds as though I am talking speed again, what I am getting at is things like say, a tyre. A tyre can only do a finite amount of work, stray beyond that and it will let go. Well designed tyres will gradually let go, given a chance most drivers will learn to recognise these signals. What I find troubling is drivers are let out onto the road with no knowledge of this, so they do not understand that braking hard going slowly around a corner is the same as driving around the corner too fast, agreed ABS will try to keep you on the road but once you have exceeded the work capacity of that tyre that’s it, you are out of control. Armed with this knowledge a driver who wishes not to bend his pride and joy will adjust their speed allowing for the possibility they may have to brake. I could go on for some time on this theme but I think this illustrates the point, most of the current problems are due to lack of knowledge not a wilful urge for self destruction.

[Rolebama]

I am going to defend the Highway Code, but not on the basis of 'I know best'. As with all things in life, there has to be a standard to conform to. I feel the Highway Code is flawed, but if everybody drove to the rules/instructions laid down within it, there would, I feel, be a lot less collisions on the road. The two main ones I defend absolutely are: 1. Drive on the left. A very basic rule which I see deliberately flouted on a regular basis. 2. Do nothing to cause another road user to have to change their speed or direction. If I didn't react to those that make me change speed and direction, I could have a collision on almost every journey I undertake. I would also add that if everybody kept a sensible distance from the vehicle in front, it would reduce the number of stupid collisions on the roads.
In terms of education vs punishment for traffic violations, I go for punishment every time. The offenders have assumingly taken instruction and passed a Test. There is no excuse.

[Snowball]

Wagolynn, whilst what you say has many truths, I have to agree with Rolebama's views. The Highway Code may not be perfect, but it is the nearest thing we have to a coherent guide, and probably this will always be the case. Certainly, I have never heard of a driver being found guilty for observing it.

The comment about tyres losing grip gradually isn't strictly true; depending on road conditions, a tyre can suddenly lose its grip. At the limit of adhesion, it only takes the rebound of a small road defect to lift the car's weight sufficiently for the adhesion factor to suddenly change, and away you go.
In addition, no degree of driving skill can defy the laws of physics, where force and motion are concerned.

Too many drivers never give a thought to the fact that four times the area of the palm of your hand is all that you are relying on to keep the vehicle travelling in the direction that you intend it to go. The combination of speed and road conditions can change the "breakaway point", and through a wide spectrum, at any time.

Coming back to the Highway Code, the combination of this and what a driver is taught remains a constant guide for road safety from day one, through all future experience as a driver. Why do drivers oppose it?

When surgeons have completed their training, you don't expect them to go out and perform reckless methods contrary to patient safety. Not much different to driving; carelessness in both camps can result in loss of life.

[wagolynn]

Originally Posted by Rolebama

I am going to defend the Highway Code, but not on the basis of 'I know best'. As with all things in life, there has to be a standard to conform to. I feel the Highway Code is flawed, but if everybody drove to the rules/instructions laid down within it, there would, I feel, be a lot less collisions on the road. The two main ones I defend absolutely are: 1. Drive on the left. A very basic rule which I see deliberately flouted on a regular basis. 2. Do nothing to cause another road user to have to change their speed or direction. If I didn't react to those that make me change speed and direction, I could have a collision on almost every journey I undertake. I would also add that if everybody kept a sensible distance from the vehicle in front, it would reduce the number of stupid collisions on the roads.
In terms of education vs punishment for traffic violations, I go for punishment every time. The offenders have assumingly taken instruction and passed a Test. There is no excuse.

Hi Rolebama,
Ok the Highway Code is a framework upon which to build driving practice, I just had a quick look for its history but could not nail it down. I am bugged by the thought that originally it was what it says on the tin, a code of conduct for the highway. Woe betides you if you caused an accident by not conforming to the code, but not actual law. I will continue looking unless anyone knows better.

As to punishment verses education, what did your discussions with other drivers reveal on your recent course? I hope that people rarely get into a vehicle to kill, injure or even obstruct someone. They act on what they perceive (I mean what their brain interprets of the road ahead) and make a judgment based upon their experience and what they recall from their basic training. The problem is, to learn from a mistake you must first know that a mistake was made.
If the driving population remained the same then punishment might have some effect, by reducing the number of drivers on the road. Unfortunately, for this strategy, there will always be a fresh lot of new drivers, devoid of any road craft coming to join the conflict. To my mind, the best thing to do is take every opportunity to explain what is wrong; eventually you end up with a better informed therefore better behaved population of drivers.

Complaints about driving often remained me of a quote from the Vicar of mirth (probably before your time), “we are all here on this earth to help others, what on earth the others are here for I do not knowâ€.;)

[wagolynn]

Originally Posted by Snowball

Wagolynn, whilst what you say has many truths, I have to agree with Rolebama's views. The Highway Code may not be perfect, but it is the nearest thing we have to a coherent guide, and probably this will always be the case. Certainly, I have never heard of a driver being found guilty for observing it.

Here I would argue that both you and the guy with the vegetation problem were both found guilty of trying to observe the highway code.

Originally Posted by Snowball

The comment about tyres losing grip gradually isn't strictly true; depending on road conditions, a tyre can suddenly lose its grip. At the limit of adhesion, it only takes the rebound of a small road defect to lift the car's weight sufficiently for the adhesion factor to suddenly change, and away you go.
In addition, no degree of driving skill can defy the laws of physics, where force and motion are concerned.

This is the point I am making, there are warnings from the feel long before you reach that point.
When I get a different vehicle, first job is test brakes for slowing and emergency stop. Find out how the tyres behave i.e. Where is the limit, ok this will be for current road conditions but it serves as a reference point, check how it accelerates. All vital to my and other road users’ survival, I assumed that that was normal.

Originally Posted by Snowball

Too many drivers never give a thought to the fact that four times the area of the palm of your hand is all that you are relying on to keep the vehicle travelling in the direction that you intend it to go. The combination of speed and road conditions can change the "breakaway point", and through a wide spectrum, at any time.

Well of course monitoring current grip is a continuous function. Black ice may still be an issue.

Originally Posted by Snowball

Coming back to the Highway Code, the combination of this and what a driver is taught remains a constant guide for road safety from day one, through all future experience as a driver. Why do drivers oppose it?

Now if the law would treat it as a guide we are getting somewhere.

Originally Posted by Snowball

When surgeons have completed their training, you don't expect them to go out and perform reckless methods contrary to patient safety. Not much different to driving; carelessness in both camps can result in loss of life.

Just like driving, surgeons will conduction a particular operation in principle in a particular way, apart from correcting for the difference between patients, correcting their own errors and trying it slightly differently because it may turn out quicker or more efficient etc.

[Snowball]

Originally Posted by wagolynn

Here I would argue that both you and the guy with the vegetation problem were both found guilty of trying to observe the highway code.

Not true. The guilty verdict was orchestrated by a corrupt judicial system which puts the blame on the driver, rather than penalising councils who fail to do their jobs.

Now if the law would treat it as a guide we are getting somewhere.

Again a convenient but corrupt system; blame the driver and protect revenue.

Just like driving, surgeons will conduction a particular operation in principle in a particular way, apart from correcting for the difference between patients, correcting their own errors and trying it slightly differently because it may turn out quicker or more efficient etc.

And, as in driving, may result in disaster.

On the subject of tyre grip, provided that a tyre is satisfactory in all respects, and that a driver properly observes road conditions, then a vehicle should not be put to the limits where its grip fails.

Regarding this point, the Continental Tyre Company carried out test at MIRA, and it was shown that 3 mm tread depth was the minimum for safety, both in grip and braking efficiency. After this stage, further wear makes conditions worse.
So, why hasn't the MoT been amended to correct this anomaly? Could it be political; increase in annual rate of scrap tyres = adverse effects on environment = government cosying up to the environmentalists? I can't answer that, but safety should be a priority.

Furthermore, if drivers insist on operating right down to the 1.6 mm legal limit, then their driving behaviour should be adjusted to account for the loss of tyre performance. Yet how many drivers are even aware of these tests and their results?

For several years I have scrapped my tyres at between 3 and 4 mm tread depth. On the down side, earlier discarding of tyres, but not very costly financially, because the last 1.5 mm or so of legal tread wears very quickly. On the plus side, confidence that my tyres are always fully reliable, and the priceless assurance that the car is safe.

There will always be variations in what we do or don't agree upon, but one thing is absolutely certain; only driving correctly to decent standards, and proper maintenance of vehicles, will reduce road casualties.

[wagolynn]

Originally Posted by Snowball

There will always be variations in what we do or don't agree upon, but one thing is absolutely certain; only driving correctly to decent standards, and proper maintenance of vehicles, will reduce road casualties.

Re-vegetation etc., the very point I am trying to make, the present system does not work for many reasons.

Re- surgeon, that is how medical progress is made, very little in life is black and white, unfortunately most of it is gray.

The point was, any tyre has a finite grip available, it does not matter to the tyre how that grip is used, traction, braking or steering. If some of that grip is being used for braking or acceleration then it is not available for steering, hence braking in a bend at low speed can exceed the grip available. Grip actually peeks at 10% slip. Drivers unaware of this are going to get some nasty surprises, driving along at or below the speed limit thinking, they are safe.

As far as I know Continental Tyre Company make tyres, so they would say that. The last I read on tread depth, with the ‘fashion’ for wider tyres, the tyre performance in the wet degrades at 2mm, which appears to be about right in practice. The ‘normal’ tyre drops of at about 1.6mm. Again, drivers aware of their tyres automatically compensate, though I would not recommend going beyond the legal limits.

The last paragraph, above - I can only add, understanding to your list of driving requirements.

[Snowball]

The tests were conducted by MIRA, which is an independent research facility.

2mm of tread does not do its job properly. In heavy rain, each tyre has to dispel in excess of one gallon of water per second. The only way for this to happen is via the treads. At 2 mm and under, aquaplaning is very possible.

From 3mm or so, the treads wear more quickly due to increased scuffing, and scuffing is caused by the tyre losing its grip, thus increasing friction between tyre and road.

[wagolynn]

Originally Posted by Snowball

The tests were conducted by MIRA, which is an independent research facility.

2mm of tread does not do its job properly. In heavy rain, each tyre has to dispel in excess of one gallon of water per second. The only way for this to happen is via the treads. At 2 mm and under, aquaplaning is very possible.

From 3mm or so, the treads wear more quickly due to increased scuffing, and scuffing is caused by the tyre losing its grip, thus increasing friction between tyre and road.

I have been looking for information on the tyre tests you mentioned, because it is serious. It would appear that it is a controversial issue in the tyre world. Michelin and Goodyear say that their testing says tyres are ok at 2mm, they say different compounds and tread patterns are the key.
Fleet managers are changing wide tyres at 2mm based on their own accident data and the difficulty of keeping a check on tyres when they do not see the vehicles. Of course, all this is negated if the tyre pressure is incorrect.
If the tyre industry is so concerned for our welfare, why don’t they make the tread deeper incorporating wear bars at 3mm and the legal 1.6 mm?
I also have found in practice, standing water appears to cause aquaplaning at about 50MPH no matter what the state of the tyres. I read that, new tyres tend to wear quickly due the tread blocks flexing and generating heat, this is why fuel consumption is marginally higher on new tyres. The whole field is clouded by variations in driving styles, vehicle design etc. :confused:

[Snowball]

For the Continental Tyres MIRA info, go onto Google and click on
Continental Tyres - Research into wet driving conditions......
www.conti-online.com

There will be some variations in different tyre makes because of the different tread patterns. Also, different manufacturers have their own opinions of which patterns give the best performance across a wide range of road condition.

They cannot really increase the tread depths because they would become unstable; the tread pattern collapsing from sideways forces.

For the last 5 years I have stayed with Michelin Energy tyres, and I find these to be satisfactory. They may wear a little quicker than some tyres, but that is the problem with tyre technology. The harder wearing a tyre, the lower its roadholding qualities, but to get the absolutely best possible grip, tyre life would be abortively short. So they have to work on the tread patterns and tyre construction qualities to obtain the best possible performance with a tyre life that is acceptable to the end users.

I spent over 30 years in rubber-to-metal development but, with 12 years retirement under my belt, I have to admit that I am out of touch with recent developments in rubber technology.

Regards, Snowball.

[mills705]

first of all,
I know speeding is wrong so dont get me on that!
But IMO we need more Traffic cops! and not ones just for motorways.
I watch a programme needed 'speeders' it is about american law enforcement and generally deals with speeders but also other traffic violations.
I think there 'ticket' system is alot better- the fine is variant on the misdemenour and the police officers judgement!
Whilst also on american ideas, why not insurance cards!? These are driving licenseesque pieces of card stating you have insurance. If these were used here it would save alot of time I think.

Next tyres debate!
I go on a forum and I will never buy cheap tyres! I just wont, I want to know the rubber is good and I will change when it gets low! Why risk yours and others lives!
Go for the best tyre and keep the 4 same tyres on! simpels!

[dnhcliho]

overall accident rates have not fallen because we are reading the road less...we spend all our time lookin for hidden cameras...

[Snowball]

I make considerable use of my cruise control, even in 30 pmh limits, if I am not going to be in a stop/start situation. This allows me to spend less time watching my speedometer. The only time I have to watch it is when going down hill, unless I select a low enough gear to allow the engine to do the braking.

It's amazing how quickly you learn to use the cruise control as an additional safety device, rather than limiting it to long NSL stretches.

[smudger]

Originally Posted by dnhcliho

overall accident rates have not fallen because we are reading the road less...we spend all our time lookin for hidden cameras...

Yea! I liked that one.;)

[wagolynn]

Originally Posted by smudger879n

Yea! I liked that one.;)

Yes, also have you noticed that the standard of overtaking is now very poor both from the overtaker and the overtaken?