New Car runs on Air

[repiV]

and I see what your saying as well. there are times when drivers have seen me then completly ignored me, and also times when I have had to visually had to tell drivers not to do what they were thinking. I get you, you get me, everything is good, mazel tov, imma gonna go eat some cheese.

Mmm, cheese. Tempting, but I think it's really my bedtime now.

 

[Operational]

We should use horses.

I read somewhere that if we all used horses the effect on the environment would be the same due to the horses own, err, emissions.

All living organisms on the planet emit Carbon Dioxide as part of their life cycle.

So what does it pollute, exactly?

No it isn't a pollutant but the quantities that humans are producing is widely believed to be a significant factor in climate change.

The real causes of accidents here are wasting precious thinking and reaction time on obeying speed limits instead of focusing on the road

I'll agree that in a perfect world there would be no speed limits and every road user would be smart enough to make their own judgments as to what is a good speed. But people are idiots if you don't tell them how fast to drive then they simply drive as fast as possible regardless of safety.

I think Ryans link is pretty clear

When there is a crash the faster you are travelling the more likly you are to die.
It says nothing about the probability of crashes but I would assume high risk areas are places like intersections and merging lanes where traffic has to "interact" so to speak. It is why freeways are safer to travel on (unlimited speeds are ok on freeways in my book).

To sum up basically I'm saying that the cause of accidents is a separate issue than the cause of death in accidents. Putting speed camera's on freeways is revenue raising, putting speed cameras at high risk intersections is helping road safety (especially if they are advertised like the ones on my road are).

...congestion caused by these artificially low speed limits.

Congestion is caused by lots of cars in a small space, not low speed limits which are low because of the high density of cars increasing the liklyhood of a crash, especially if you are driving too fast.

 

[Stigmata]

All living organisms on the planet emit Carbon Dioxide as part of their life cycle.

So what does it pollute, exactly?

It pollutes by being a greenhouse gas. No, one car's pollution will not affect the climate that much, but we're dumping ridiculous amounts of pollution into the air (CO2 and otherwise - CO2 is not the only pollutant created by combustion engines), and most people will tell you that we are starting to see some fairly negative effects of this. Shrinking ice caps, erratic weather patterns, and so forth.

 

[Kyorisu]

Of course, you can't blame all London's traffic ills on idiotic planning - rather, much of it on no planning since the city grew organically. Wrenn's post-Great-Fire vision was never realised.

Planned cities are just as bad. Adelaide is one and it's still crazy for traffic, even with such a low population. Not to mention a new tram line is being put in which rapes the ability to turn right coming into town from Main North Road.

It pollutes by being a greenhouse gas. No, one car's pollution will not affect the climate that much, but we're dumping ridiculous amounts of pollution into the air (CO2 and otherwise - CO2 is not the only pollutant created by combustion engines), and most people will tell you that we are starting to see some fairly negative effects of this. Shrinking ice caps, erratic weather patterns, and so forth.

Aye but CO2 is insignificant as Volcanoes and Oceans emit vastly massive amounts more than the entirety of mankind.

 

[jverne]

repi you're completely butchering the point.

speed itself doesn't kill you, being stupid and speeding, does.


read:

Speed and crash factors

Some safety factors are not always under the full control of the driver, such as driver alertness and distractions, road conditions, weather, daylight availability, actions and alertness of other drivers, and wildlife. While these factors are not directly related to vehicle speed, the effects of these factors can be more severe with more speed. For example, a deer running across the road has no consequences to a parked vehicle but could have disastrous consequences for a vehicle traveling at 100 mph (160 km/h). This suggests that lower speeds can reduce the frequency and severity of crashes; lower speeds can give the driver more time to respond appropriately in the face of unexpected dangers, and it can reduce the severity of a crash should one happen. However, since the efficacy of speed limits in restraining driver speed is subject to debate, it is not clear how well speed limits can ameliorate these other factors.

Another view is that, while speed can play a part of the causal chain which leads to crashes, speed's role is mostly to magnify the consequences of other unsafe acts. This viewpoint is reinforced by the fact that speed is rarely the sole crash factor. In many cases, removing the other crash factors, such as a right of way violation, would have absolutely prevented the collision. While reducing the speed could have a beneficial effect on the severity and probability of the crash, it usually cannot guarantee crash prevention.

Most 'speed-related' crashes involve speed too fast for conditions such as limited visibility or reduced road traction, rather than in excess of the posted speed limit. Most speed-related crashes occur on local and collector roads with relatively low speed limits. However, most speed-related traffic citations involve speeds in excess of posted maximum speed limits. Variable speed limits (q.v.) offer some potential to reduce speed-related crashes, but due to the high cost of implementation exist primarily on motorways. Speed-related crashes can occur on high speed limit roads at low speeds, e.g. below 30 mph; for example, truck rollovers on exit ramps.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_limit#Variable_speed_limits


speed ads the severity. and makes you less aware of the surroundings.
but if you have a habit to drive fast then it's more stressful to watch for speed limits. but that is your problem in the first place.

i do agree that the main cause for accidents is human stupidity. but adding speed makes everything more serious.

seatbelt are useless you say? oh please that's probably the most retarded thing i heard a long time.

and the site you mentioned, reminds me of clarkys 911 sites. probably biased bullshit.

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

I intend to get my drivers lisence in the summer, and the tax for having a car is ridiculous. Even if you have a bio-powered/electric/hydrogen/other eco-friednly stuff you have to pay.

I personally await the day when we have networked roads and hover cars. Flying cars, that drive themselves. Rock on biatches!

 

[repiV]

I'll agree that in a perfect world there would be no speed limits and every road user would be smart enough to make their own judgments as to what is a good speed. But people are idiots if you don't tell them how fast to drive then they simply drive as fast as possible regardless of safety.

I think Ryans link is pretty clear

When there is a crash the faster you are travelling the more likly you are to die.
It says nothing about the probability of crashes but I would assume high risk areas are places like intersections and merging lanes where traffic has to "interact" so to speak. It is why freeways are safer to travel on (unlimited speeds are ok on freeways in my book).

To sum up basically I'm saying that the cause of accidents is a separate issue than the cause of death in accidents. Putting speed camera's on freeways is revenue raising, putting speed cameras at high risk intersections is helping road safety (especially if they are advertised like the ones on my road are).

The fact that you're more likely to die in a higher speed collision is totally irrelevant to the fact that hardly any accidents actually happen at high speed.

Congestion is caused by lots of cars in a small space, not low speed limits which are low because of the high density of cars increasing the liklyhood of a crash, especially if you are driving too fast.

Low speed limits mean that there will be more cars occupying the same space at any one time, therefore increasing congestion.

 

[repiV]

repi you're completely butchering the point.

speed itself doesn't kill you, being stupid and speeding, does.

"Being stupid and speeding"? What does that even mean? Everybody speeds. Why do we have the safest roads in the world if we all speed? Because speed limits are largely irrelevant to road safety, and in some cases make the roads more dangerous.

read:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_limit#Variable_speed_limits


speed ads the severity. and makes you less aware of the surroundings.
but if you have a habit to drive fast then it's more stressful to watch for speed limits. but that is your problem in the first place.

i do agree that the main cause for accidents is human stupidity. but adding speed makes everything more serious.

seatbelt are useless you say? oh please that's probably the most retarded thing i heard a long time.

and the site you mentioned, reminds me of clarkys 911 sites. probably biased bullshit.

I didn't say seatbelts are useless, I said they make people complacent drivers. SUV drivers are the worst I've ever encountered.
If everyone rode motorcycles there would hardly be any accidents because the consequences of a single stupid mistake for us is death, not an insurance claim. The motorcycle test is also a lot harder than the driving test to reflect the danger, although it should actually be drivers being trained to the same higher standard since it is they who cause us the danger in the first place.

Biased bullshit? No, it's based on the principles of Police Class I driver training and successful advanced driving systems used by RoSPA, IAM etc. Go get yourself a forum account on www.safespeed.org.uk and argue your case there with a group of people including highly skilled advanced drivers, people who have been driving for 20 years plus and experienced traffic police, you'll soon realise how wrong you are.
It's quite a simple fact that if you can stop in the distance you can see to be clear on your side of the road, then the speed you are doing is not dangerous, and if you can't, then it is. If you're following too closely behind another car at 25mph, you're a dangerous driver but if you're doing 180 and there is nothing around for miles, you're perfectly safe.

 

[Operational]

The fact that you're more likely to die in a higher speed collision is totally irrelevant to the fact that hardly any accidents actually happen at high speed.

I think I'll clarify my position on this better. What I am trying to say is that it is high risk areas on the road (intersections for example) that are where most accidents* take place. Going too fast around these high risk areas increases the chance of a crash but people can't be relied upon to drive at a safe speed around these areas, hence speed limits. On a well made road (eg a Freeway) in good conditions I don't see why people shouldn't be allowed to go as fast as they feel comfortable with.


* keep in mind that an accident doesn't have to be between two vehicles, a car hitting a pedestrian is still an accident so in areas with a lot of people about it just makes sense to drive slower so that you can see them all.

Low speed limits mean that there will be more cars occupying the same space at any one time, therefore increasing congestion.

Don't know what it is like in the UK, but here congested traffic already travels below the speed limit so it wouldn't matter if the speed limit was 100km/h or 1000km/h the traffic would still be going 20-30km/h because there are more cars.

 

[repiV]

Did you actually read my post? I was agreeing with you on this point.


Don't know what it is like in the UK, but here congested traffic already travels below the speed limit so it wouldn't matter if the speed limit was 100km/h or 1000km/h the traffic would still be going 20-30km/h because there are more cars.

Well, yes, indeed. However, in other places, speed limits are set artificially low thus causing congestion, dangerous overtaking, frustration and all sorts of other things. It's a new trend recently for idiots to turn national speed limit (60/70) country roads into 50, 40 or even 30 zones for no apparent reason at all - and then enforce the new limit with speed cameras. This causes congestion, and is also highly dangerous. Revenue before safety.

I think I'll clarify my position on this better. What I am trying to say is that it is high risk areas on the road (intersections for example) that are where most accidents take place. Going too fast around these high risk areas increased the chance of a crash but people can't be relied upon to drive at a safe speed around these areas, hence speed limits. On a well made road (eg a Freeway) in good conditions I don't see why people shouldn't be allowed to go as fast as they feel comfortable with.

If you give someone control of a car, you have to entrust them to drive at a safe speed. It's an absolutely essential skill of driving. Training in this area should be better however, instead of focusing on driving to the speed limit.
Speed limits will never appropriately assess the threat level of any intersection...our limits don't change around them anyway. The standard dual carriageway limit here is 70mph, but there will be hazard warning signs indicating if you need to slow down for eg. an intersection. That's how it should be kept.
A speed limit of 30 may well be appropriate during the day, but at night 50 or 60 may well be more like it. Speed limits cannot possibly account for the complexities of the situation.

 

[Operational]

Well, yes, indeed. However, in other places, speed limits are set artificially low thus causing congestion, dangerous overtaking, frustration and all sorts of other things. It's a new trend recently for idiots to turn national speed limit (60/70) country roads into 50, 40 or even 30 zones for no apparent reason at all - and then enforce the new limit with speed cameras. This causes congestion, and is also highly dangerous. Revenue before safety.

That does indeed suck then.

If you give someone control of a car, you have to entrust them to drive at a safe speed. It's an absolutely essential skill of driving. Training in this area should be better however, instead of focusing on driving to the speed limit.

Even with better training I still wouldn't trust the general public to drive at appropriate speeds. Aside from all those who just drive poorly (it is too easy to get a licence) there will be those who just don't care. Speed limits and well placed cameras help to address both these groups. You can't outlaw stupidity but you can try.

A speed limit of 30 may well be appropriate during the day, but at night 50 or 60 may well be more like it. Speed limits cannot possibly account for the complexities of the situation.

Perhaps not but if you accept like I do that people need to be told how fast to drive there isn't any alternative (well closer to the center of the city I have seen electronically displayed dynamic speed limits but that isn't very feasible for the whole country).

 

[jverne]

the problem with you repi is that you think that everyone should drive like you. in reality this doesn't happen.

it's obvious some people drive fast in areas where there are a lot of hazards. the only way to passively control that is to make speed limits which in theory is a deterant.

you may be someone who knows how to drive but there are millions who don't.

what you are saying is an utopia, where everyone is a skilled rally driver.

oh and besides, who are you to force everybody to drive motorcycles?!

 

[repiV]

That does indeed suck then.

Even with better training I still wouldn't trust the general public to drive at appropriate speeds. Aside from all those who just drive poorly (it is too easy to get a licence) there will be those who just don't care. Speed limits and well placed cameras help to address both these groups. You can't outlaw stupidity but you can try.

I can't really comment on how easy it is to get a license because I don't know the procedure where you live. I do know that it's much harder to get a license in the UK than it is in the US, where you basically ride round some cones and get instant entitlement to drive/ride any size bike at 16.
Automated enforcement of speed limits can never be true justice - firstly because speed limits are set by council officials who more often than not have no idea about road safety and think lowering the speed limit is the ultimate solution to every problem. Secondly because speed cameras have no discretion as traffic police do (and there are hardly any trafpol about anymore because of scameras, therefore genuinely dangerous drivers can get away with their recklessness until someone gets killed), prosecute innocent people and generate contempt for the law. By setting ridiculous speed limits and using cameras as a way to generate revenue at the cost of people's livelihoods and public safety, all speed limits and road safety measures are devalued.

Perhaps not but if you accept like I do that people need to be told how fast to drive there isn't any alternative (well closer to the center of the city I have seen electronically displayed dynamic speed limits but that isn't very feasible for the whole country).

You can't tell people how fast to drive. You simply cannot drive without having that skill. You would have an accident within a day, whatever the speed limit signs say.

 

[repiV]

the problem with you repi is that you think that everyone should drive like you. in reality this doesn't happen.

Most people should drive better than me, I only passed my test a few weeks ago. In reality they don't, and that problem should be addressed. Making it so that drivers don't have to think in order to operate a vehicle doesn't make us safer. They'll conform to the speed limit because they don't want to get fined (dangerously braking for the camera causing a hazardous situation), but they'll still change lanes without checking their mirrors, pull out without looking, tailgate and do all manner of highly dangerous things without fear of reprimand.
What is this obsession with numerical speed? It's such a miniscule factor in the big machine of road safety it's almost irrelevant. The only reason for the obsession is that speed is easily measurable and enforceable and it's easy to make money out of.

it's obvious some people drive fast in areas where there are a lot of hazards. the only way to passively control that is to make speed limits which in theory is a deterant.

Speed limits are useful as nothing more than a guide for the inexperienced. Speed limits are not respected by 99% of drivers - people will drive at the speed they feel is a safe speed - using that skill you say drivers don't have.
Actually I find driving at a safe speed is one of the things drivers are generally very good at, it's other aspects that let them down.

you may be someone who knows how to drive but there are millions who don't.

Setting and enforcing speed limits is not going to make anyone a better driver. Ever.
Even the statistics don't support your claims. Lowering speed limits does not reduce accidents. Ever. The opposite is usually true.

what you are saying is an utopia, where everyone is a skilled rally driver.

oh and besides, who are you to force everybody to drive motorcycles?!

I didn't say I would force everyone to ride, I said we'd be a lot safer if everyone did. Bikers (not including the summer power ranger brigade here) are so rarely the cause of an accident because we have to be highly skilled in order to get home alive.
Drivers especially of big cars just tend to switch off because they think they're invincible.

 

[gowiththefl0w]

i think we should just ride horses. they run on oats. ive heard they're researching hybrid horses that actually recharge their oat supply while they're operating...

 

[jverne]

Most people should drive better than me, I only passed my test a few weeks ago. In reality they don't, and that problem should be addressed. Making it so that drivers don't have to think in order to operate a vehicle doesn't make us safer. They'll conform to the speed limit because they don't want to get fined (dangerously braking for the camera causing a hazardous situation), but they'll still change lanes without checking their mirrors, pull out without looking, tailgate and do all manner of highly dangerous things without fear of reprimand.
What is this obsession with numerical speed? It's such a miniscule factor in the big machine of road safety it's almost irrelevant. The only reason for the obsession is that speed is easily measurable and enforceable and it's easy to make money out of.



Speed limits are useful as nothing more than a guide for the inexperienced. Speed limits are not respected by 99% of drivers - people will drive at the speed they feel is a safe speed - using that skill you say drivers don't have.
Actually I find driving at a safe speed is one of the things drivers are generally very good at, it's other aspects that let them down.



Setting and enforcing speed limits is not going to make anyone a better driver. Ever.
Even the statistics don't support your claims. Lowering speed limits does not reduce accidents. Ever. The opposite is usually true.



I didn't say I would force everyone to ride, I said we'd be a lot safer if everyone did. Bikers (not including the summer power ranger brigade here) are so rarely the cause of an accident because we have to be highly skilled in order to get home alive.
Drivers especially of big cars just tend to switch off because they think they're invincible.

some people never learn, that's why you need to use force.

i generally don't really care about speed limits, because i'm usually aware of my surroundings, much like yourself.
i can't say for the idiots whose car has more horsepower than their IQ.

good luck with teaching everybody to drive carefully. i bet the traffic department came to the same conclusion, that prohibiting is more successful (considering the circumstances).

i do agree that with a motorcycle you need to be more skilled, i give you that. but that doesn't really change anything.

 

[repiV]

some people never learn, that's why you need to use force.

i generally don't really care about speed limits, because i'm usually aware of my surroundings, much like yourself.
i can't say for the idiots whose car has more horsepower than their IQ.

good luck with teaching everybody to drive carefully. i bet the traffic department came to the same conclusion, that prohibiting is more successful (considering the circumstances).

i do agree that with a motorcycle you need to be more skilled, i give you that. but that doesn't really change anything.

Regardless of whether the average person is intelligent enough to drive safely or not, speed enforcement is not the answer. Keeping people below arbitrary numerical speeds will not reduce accidents, and as I have pointed out before, lowering of speed limits usually causes accidents and speed cameras definitely do.
As I also said, the vast majority of accidents have nothing to do with speeding or even speed at all. The only way to reduce accidents on the road is to improve driver education and standards, and to have a strong contingent of fair and sensible traffic police. Why don't we start by making the driving test as tough as the motorcycle test? Then, we could continue by making these tests more about safe use of the roads and less of doing what the examiner wants to see you do.
Stepped licenses which reward people for taking advanced driver training would be a great idea.
We used to have the strong contingent of fair and sensible traffic police, but now they have largely been replaced by the scamera partnerships.
It's no wonder our steadily declining accident rate has started to rise since the introduction of speed cameras. We're beginning to lose our position as the country with the safest roads in the world.
What used to happen is that dangerous drivers would get prosecuted and taken off the roads. Now, it is safe and fast drivers that get banned and noone is dealing with the dangerous drivers. What kind of message does that send?

 

[jverne]

Regardless of whether the average person is intelligent enough to drive safely or not, speed enforcement is not the answer. Keeping people below arbitrary numerical speeds will not reduce accidents, and as I have pointed out before, lowering of speed limits usually causes accidents and speed cameras definitely do.
As I also said, the vast majority of accidents have nothing to do with speeding or even speed at all. The only way to reduce accidents on the road is to improve driver education and standards, and to have a strong contingent of fair and sensible traffic police. Why don't we start by making the driving test as tough as the motorcycle test? Then, we could continue by making these tests more about safe use of the roads and less of doing what the examiner wants to see you do.
Stepped licenses which reward people for taking advanced driver training would be a great idea.
We used to have the strong contingent of fair and sensible traffic police, but now they have largely been replaced by the scamera partnerships.
It's no wonder our steadily declining accident rate has started to rise since the introduction of speed cameras. We're beginning to lose our position as the country with the safest roads in the world.
What used to happen is that dangerous drivers would get prosecuted and taken off the roads. Now, it is safe and fast drivers that get banned and noone is dealing with the dangerous drivers. What kind of message does that send?

i'm just saying speed is the factor that usually causes severe accidents.
the main cause lies somewhere else.

do speed cameras cause more accidents or there are more people driving and driving tests are becoming easier?

the the speed limit usually serves as a recommended speed for a certain type of road. here the police usually gives some tolerance for crossing the speed limit (for 50kph it's +10kph, the tolerable ammount). the speed limit here actually does have some effect.

i'd rather settle for variable speed limits, on second though.
but they shouldn't be dismantled, no. they serve as an indicator of reckless driving and that the road is not suitable for certain driving styles. (if you don't know the road, the speed limit is a good indicator about the potential dangers of the road).

 

[repiV]

i'm just saying speed is the factor that usually causes severe accidents.
the main cause lies somewhere else.

Well it would certainly make any accidents that do happen worse, but high-speed traffic environments are generally quite hazard-free. They would have a lot more hazards there if the traffic was moving more slowly, which would cause accidents.

do speed cameras cause more accidents or there are more people driving and driving tests are becoming easier?

Every single year for the last 50 years until the introduction of speed cameras, the accident rate fell. That downward trend immediately ceased with the introduction of speed cameras.
Speed cameras are killing people. There's no way around it.
Also, the only potentially useful purpose they serve is to make people slow down for a few seconds. They disrupt the flow of the traffic, and cause people to panic brake even if they are below the speed limit. It's highly dangerous.
Plus, the "speed kills" brigade have brainwashed so many people now that a lot of people think that driving slowly equals driving safely - and other factors aren't even taken into consideration. Also highly dangerous.

Speed cameras are usually placed where they will make the most money - one of the criteria for their placement is that more than 15% of drivers must exceed the speed limit on the stated road. Until recently, speed limits were set by measuring the speed the road was driven at and setting the speed at that which 85% of drivers do not exceed.
As you can see, speed cameras are therefore being placed on the safest roads with the least hazards in order to bring in the most revenue. To hell with road safety.
It's extortion.

the the speed limit usually serves as a recommended speed for a certain type of road. here the police usually gives some tolerance for crossing the speed limit (for 50kph it's +10kph, the tolerable ammount). the speed limit here actually does have some effect.

They do serve as good recommended speeds - at least, they did, until they started lowering speed limits for no reason at all. I've personally seen a wide open rural carriageway with no buildings of any kind for miles having a 40mph limit, while tiny one-track side "roads" which I wouldn't dare to ride down, let alone drive through, leading off from the 40mph carriageway, are signposted with the national speed limit sign!
It's completely insane.

i'd rather settle for variable speed limits, on second though.
but they shouldn't be dismantled, no. they serve as an indicator of reckless driving and that the road is not suitable for certain driving styles. (if you don't know the road, the speed limit is a good indicator about the potential dangers of the road).

Reckless driving cannot be measured in miles per hour. Danger on the roads is clearly signposted here anyway - you know to slow down for a bend without there being a speed limit change. On particularly sharp bends, you will often get SLOW written in huge letters on the road, chevrons indicating the sharpness of the bend, big red signs saying SLOW and cats eyes to guide you round the bend at night (a very useful feature as a biker, because if I use the front brake whilst leaned over I'll eat tarmac).
They are a useful indicator, but that's all they are.

 

[jverne]

Well it would certainly make any accidents that do happen worse, but high-speed traffic environments are generally quite hazard-free. They would have a lot more hazards there if the traffic was moving more slowly, which would cause accidents.



Every single year for the last 50 years until the introduction of speed cameras, the accident rate fell. That downward trend immediately ceased with the introduction of speed cameras.
Speed cameras are killing people. There's no way around it.
Also, the only potentially useful purpose they serve is to make people slow down for a few seconds. They disrupt the flow of the traffic, and cause people to panic brake even if they are below the speed limit. It's highly dangerous.
Plus, the "speed kills" brigade have brainwashed so many people now that a lot of people think that driving slowly equals driving safely - and other factors aren't even taken into consideration. Also highly dangerous.

Speed cameras are usually placed where they will make the most money - one of the criteria for their placement is that more than 15% of drivers must exceed the speed limit on the stated road. Until recently, speed limits were set by measuring the speed the road was driven at and setting the speed at that which 85% of drivers do not exceed.
As you can see, speed cameras are therefore being placed on the safest roads with the least hazards in order to bring in the most revenue. To hell with road safety.
It's extortion.



They do serve as good recommended speeds - at least, they did, until they started lowering speed limits for no reason at all. I've personally seen a wide open rural carriageway with no buildings of any kind for miles having a 40mph limit, while tiny one-track side "roads" which I wouldn't dare to ride down, let alone drive through, leading off from the 40mph carriageway, are signposted with the national speed limit sign!
It's completely insane.



Reckless driving cannot be measured in miles per hour. Danger on the roads is clearly signposted here anyway - you know to slow down for a bend without there being a speed limit change. On particularly sharp bends, you will often get SLOW written in huge letters on the road, chevrons indicating the sharpness of the bend, big red signs saying SLOW and cats eyes to guide you round the bend at night (a very useful feature as a biker, because if I use the front brake whilst leaned over I'll eat tarmac).
They are a useful indicator, but that's all they are.

1.high speed are generally more safe, i agree, but that's because they are designed so. in urban areas there should be a max speed allowed.

2.,3.and i should believe you on your word?

4.,5. so we are actually talking about poor placement of speed limits, that's a bit different. it's not actually their fault but it's the traffic department fault.in essence speed limits mostly work in scaring someone not to speed.

 

[Dan]

Fuel cells will never be practical. Basically, the oil companies encourage them so that they can look to be environmentally friendly and they know that they never will become a viable alternative for atleaast 570 years from now. As it stands right now fuel cells can't operate in all temperatures and they require platinum contacts. There is not enough platinum in the earth to manufacture fuel cells for every car. They are basically just an electric car with a very inefficient battery.

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

What we need it better solar power. One that absorbs more than one colour.

Or Fusion. (but that can't be used in cars)

 

[Parrot of doom]

It pollutes by being a greenhouse gas. No, one car's pollution will not affect the climate that much, but we're dumping ridiculous amounts of pollution into the air (CO2 and otherwise - CO2 is not the only pollutant created by combustion engines), and most people will tell you that we are starting to see some fairly negative effects of this. Shrinking ice caps, erratic weather patterns, and so forth.

Ridiculous amounts? Examine the percentage of the atmosphere that CO2 comprises. Then examine the percentage of that CO2 that is produced by human activity. Then examine the percentage of that contribution that comes from vehicular activity.

I think you'll be shocked.

There is also no direct observable correlation between ice cap activity and global CO2 concentrations - it simply does not work that way. Same with weather patterns.

The debate around anthropogenic climate change is probably for another topic, but its safe to say that it is being driven by politics, rather than science. Science is not decided by consensus, it is decided by rigorous study and testing - and so far, the jury is out.

 

[gowiththefl0w]

As I also said, the vast majority of accidents have nothing to do with speeding or even speed at all.

it is ridiculous to suggest that the majority of accidents have nothing to do with the speeding. it is a simple fact that as ones speed increases, their reaction time is reduced. the less time one has to react to an unexpected event, the greater the chance they will be unable to avoid it.

Why don't we start by making the driving test as tough as the motorcycle test? Then, we could continue by making these tests more about safe use of the roads and less of doing what the examiner wants to see you do.

i hope your not suggesting that individuals who have passed the motorcycle test possess the competency to drive at whatever speed they desire... if this logic were so then said motorists would never get in accidents, but alas they do.

obviously no one wants to be told how fast they can drive. unfortunately, not only is a vast majority of the population incompetent, but intelligence has nothing to do with ones reaction time.

 

[phantomdesign]

damn, that thing is SO UGLY!

 

[repiV]

1.high speed are generally more safe, i agree, but that's because they are designed so. in urban areas there should be a max speed allowed.

You virtually never see people belting it at a ridiculous speed through urban areas anyway. Because people know to drive at a safe speed.
That's fine in general, but still inadequate as 30 is usually a sensible speed in 30 zones during the day, but at night anywhere from 45 to 60 is fine.

2.,3.and i should believe you on your word?

No, you should know your facts: SafeSpeed

4.,5. so we are actually talking about poor placement of speed limits, that's a bit different. it's not actually their fault but it's the traffic department fault.in essence speed limits mostly work in scaring someone not to speed.

"Scaring someone not to speed"?
People go at whatever speed they feel is safe, the limits are irrelevant. There are stretches of the A41 through north London where the traffic flows, almost without fail, at a steady 60-65mph despite the limit being 40.
In an uncongested main road 30 zone, the traffic usually flows at between 35 and 40mph.
Everybody speeds every day. If hidden speed cameras were placed on every road for a day, chances are basically everyone who got on the roads that day would lose their license. Which illustrates how stupid the whole system is.

 

[repiV]

it is ridiculous to suggest that the majority of accidents have nothing to do with the speeding. it is a simple fact that as ones speed increases, their reaction time is reduced. the less time one has to react to an unexpected event, the greater the chance they will be unable to avoid it.

What the **** are you talking about?
You don't think more slowly when you go faster, that's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. If anything, your concentration is heightened at higher speeds.
Good drivers expect the unexpected, and keep a safe following distance so that they can always stop in time should the person in front decide to execute an emergency stop. This is basic, basic test stuff. Only a fool breaks the two second rule.

In any event, stop making shit up. The fact is, only 4% of road traffic accidents in this country involve speed as a factor. In virtually all those accidents, the main cause was something else. The vast majority of accidents happen at below the urban speed limit for this country.

i hope your not suggesting that individuals who have passed the motorcycle test possess the competency to drive at whatever speed they desire... if this logic were so then said motorists would never get in accidents, but alas they do.

Again, what the **** are you talking about?
Are you seriously suggesting that speed is the cause of all accidents?
I nearly got knocked off my bike twice today. Once because some moron in a van decided to change lanes without looking OR indicating and cut right across my path forcing me to brake. Causes: lack of observation, failure to indicate. The speed it happened at is irrelevant and it was only about 20mph anyway.
And the other time was my fault - I filtered across a junction and nearly ran into a car pulling out right across my path, but I hit the gas and got out of the way. It was a stupid thing of me to do, but it has jack shit to do with speed. I was going at less than 10mph when the danger occured. It happened because I was too busy paying attention to the traffic that I didn't realise I was passing a junction (obscured by two lanes of London rush hour traffic to my left).
Again, the cause was insufficient observation on my part.
Ironically, I avoided that accident because I have insane acceleration on tap. Going fast kept me out of trouble. If I was on a small bike I'd be in casualty now.
I've had so many near misses at low speed (none of them my fault, except what happened today) because that's where the hazards are and where the frustrated, sloppy, tired, tense, dangerous drivers are.
I know I have a tendency to tense up filtering through heavy traffic, which affects my balance slightly, because it's a nerve-wracking thing to do and yet it's sub-20mph, sometimes I don't even use the throttle. Just let the clutch out half-way and glide slowly between the cars.
I've not even come close to approaching a dangerous situation going over 100mph.

obviously no one wants to be told how fast they can drive. unfortunately, not only is a vast majority of the population incompetent, but intelligence has nothing to do with ones reaction time.

Reaction time shouldn't even have to come in to it. Truly skilled drivers avoid having to test their reaction times by spotting and averting potentially dangerous situations before they become dangerous. This has nothing whatsoever to do with adhering to speed limits.
Your total ignorance on safe driving concerns me...I wouldn't want to be near you on the roads.

 

[jverne]

What the **** are you talking about?
You don't think more slowly when you go faster, that's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. If anything, your concentration is heightened at higher speeds.
Good drivers expect the unexpected, and keep a safe following distance so that they can always stop in time should the person in front decide to execute an emergency stop. This is basic, basic test stuff. Only a fool breaks the two second rule.

In any event, stop making shit up. The fact is, only 4% of road traffic accidents in this country involve speed as a factor. In virtually all those accidents, the main cause was something else. The vast majority of accidents happen at below the urban speed limit for this country.



Again, what the **** are you talking about?
Are you seriously suggesting that speed is the cause of all accidents?
I nearly got knocked off my bike twice today. Once because some moron in a van decided to change lanes without looking and cut right across my path forcing me to brake. Cause: lack of observation. The speed it happened at is irrelevant and it was only about 20mph anyway.
And the other time was my fault - I filtered across a junction and nearly ran into a car pulling out right across my path, but I hit the gas and got out of the way. It was a stupid thing of me to do, but it has jack shit to do with speed. I was going at less than 10mph when the danger occured. It happened because I was too busy paying attention to the traffic that I didn't realise I was passing a junction (obscured by two lanes of London rush hour traffic to my left).
Again, the cause was insufficient observation on my part.
Ironically, I avoided that accident because I have insane acceleration on tap. Going fast kept me out of trouble. If I was on a small bike I'd be in casualty now.
I've had so many near misses at low speed (none of them my fault, except what happened today) because that's where the hazards are and where the frustrated, sloppy, tired, tense, dangerous drivers are.
I know I have a tendency to tense up filtering through heavy traffic, which affects my balance slightly, because it's a nerve-wracking thing to do and yet it's sub-20mph, sometimes I don't even use the throttle. Just let the clutch out half-way and glide slowly between the cars.
I've not even come close to approaching a dangerous situation going over 100mph.



Reaction time shouldn't even have to come in to it. Truly skilled drivers avoid having to test their reaction times by spotting and averting potentially dangerous situations before they become dangerous. This has nothing whatsoever to do with adhering to speed limits.
Your total ignorance on safe driving concerns me...I wouldn't want to be near you on the roads.

ok this can lead to an endless debate so i'm getting a bit tired.

lets say you decide to overtake someone on the high way and then suddenly some idiot who is in front of the car being overtaked decides to change lanes. at a slower speed you would react fast enough to avoid collision, at higher speeds you probably end up destroying every car in the immediate vicinity.

or

let's say you drive along a relatively safe and fast road, when somebody from a dirt road at the side which is not visible due to vegetation decides to drive on you lane. with a lower speed you probably notice and react accordingly, with higher speeds you are toast. that happened to one of my friend on his motorcycle, some guy decided to cross his road and bam...he almost died. he actually was a bit above the speed limit.

or

kids playing in a neighborhood that has cars on the sides, but it's fairly wide and seems calm. when suddenly one kid jumps to catch a ball. or worse you get hit by the ball.


there are countless examples where speed caused serious damage, even tough the road seems safe.

what about if you loose concentration for a second and end up in a car.


my conclusion is...stupidity causes more accidents. speed makes these even worse.
i definitely agree that maybe the driving test should be improved. but i'm also for keeping speed limits in a certain form. most likely in the form of variable speeds or tolerances depending on the driving conditions.
so if the police caught you driving 20kph over the limit, in the middle of the night with nobody around, they don't go crazy ass on you.

 

[repiV]

ok this can lead to an endless debate so i'm getting a bit tired.

lets say you decide to overtake someone on the high way and then suddenly some idiot who is in front of the car being overtaked decides to change lanes. at a slower speed you would react fast enough to avoid collision, at higher speeds you probably end up destroying every car in the immediate vicinity.

First of all, and this should be obvious, the cause of that accident would be the driver changing lanes whilst being overtaken, without looking and without indicating. THREE counts of dangerous driving in one manoeuvre!
Secondly, that's why I always nail the throttle as much as the road conditions will allow so that I spend as little time in the danger zone as possible. Being quick makes being the victim of such an accident far less likely. On a clear open road I will often double my speed or more to overtake. The whole overtake is maybe a five second process and then I'm not in any danger anymore.

or

let's say you drive along a relatively safe and fast road, when somebody from a dirt road at the side which is not visible due to vegetation decides to drive on you lane. with a lower speed you probably notice and react accordingly, with higher speeds you are toast. that happened to one of my friend on his motorcycle, some guy decided to cross his road and bam...he almost died. he actually was a bit above the speed limit.

Then the cause of the accident would be the right of way violation on behalf of the moron who pulled out. Again, nothing to do with speed.

or

kids playing in a neighborhood that has cars on the sides, but it's fairly wide and seems calm. when suddenly one kid jumps to catch a ball. or worse you get hit by the ball.

Again, the cause of the accident would be inattentive pedestrians. You haven't cited a single example where speed is the cause of the accident and that's your concerted effort to prove your point?

there are countless examples where speed caused serious damage, even tough the road seems safe.

what about if you loose concentration for a second and end up in a car.

You can lose concentration for a second and end up in a car at any speed, because it's inadequate following distance and observation that causes rear-end shunts, not excessive speed.

my conclusion is...stupidity causes more accidents. speed makes these even worse.
i definitely agree that maybe the driving test should be improved. but i'm also for keeping speed limits in a certain form. most likely in the form of variable speeds or tolerances depending on the driving conditions.
so if the police caught you driving 20kph over the limit, in the middle of the night with nobody around, they don't go crazy ass on you.

I'm perfectly happy for speed limits to remain - they are a useful guide for the inexperienced or people who don't know the area at all, but speeding in itself should not be an offence. If someone was driving at a dangerous speed, then they should be prosecuted for dangerous driving, whether that speed was above or below the speed limit. Speeding in safety should not be a crime.

Go and have a good look through SafeSpeed. I particularly recommend the following pages:

Why drivers speed

How road safety really works

Speed camera effects

Speeding does not kill

Speedo checks

 

[jverne]

First of all, and this should be obvious, the cause of that accident would be the driver changing lanes whilst being overtaken, without looking and without indicating. THREE counts of dangerous driving in one manoeuvre!
Secondly, that's why I always nail the throttle as much as the road conditions will allow so that I spend as little time in the danger zone as possible. Being quick makes being the victim of such an accident far less likely. On a clear open road I will often double my speed or more to overtake. The whole overtake is maybe a five second process and then I'm not in any danger anymore.



Then the cause of the accident would be the right of way violation on behalf of the moron who pulled out. Again, nothing to do with speed.



Again, the cause of the accident would be inattentive pedestrians. You haven't cited a single example where speed is the cause of the accident and that's your concerted effort to prove your point?



You can lose concentration for a second and end up in a car at any speed, because it's inadequate following distance and observation that causes rear-end shunts, not excessive speed.



I'm perfectly happy for speed limits to remain - they are a useful guide for the inexperienced or people who don't know the area at all, but speeding in itself should not be an offence. If someone was driving at a dangerous speed, then they should be prosecuted for dangerous driving, whether that speed was above or below the speed limit. Speeding in safety should not be a crime.

Go and have a good look through SafeSpeed. I particularly recommend the following pages:

Why drivers speed

How road safety really works

Speed camera effects

Speeding does not kill

Speedo checks

you are partially missing the point too. i'm actually saying that speed makes lot's of accidents severe, with fatal consequences. not that speed itself is the cause.
please keep this in mind.


in those examples, it's not actually the one who drove fast who is to blame, but the moron who acted incorrectly. that doesn't change the point that if the speeds involved were lower there wouldn't be such severe consequences.

in general people need to drive more aware and part of that is to drive slowly when the situation requires. in an ideal world speed limits would be obsolete. in RL it's a different story.

i stand by my point and there is nothing you posted that rationally explains why they are useless. you simply ignore factors that exist in RL situations.
but i fully agree that some speed limits are badly placed or incorrectly applied or that the police in some cases reacts really idiotic for banal reasons.

and those sites you posted, i'd take them with a grain of salt.

 

[repiV]

you are partially missing the point too. i'm actually saying that speed makes lot's of accidents severe, with fatal consequences. not that speed itself is the cause.
please keep this in mind.

Wouldn't any sensible person address the actual causes of accidents?
There's nothing wrong with advising people to think rationally about the speeds they are doing, but in this country at the moment virtually all road safety attention is focused on adhering to speed limits!
The message is that if you obey the speed limits you're a safe driver. Virtually all the traffic police have been replaced by speed cameras, which as well as unjust and extortionate are highly dangerous for a number of reasons, not least that, as detailed by one of the articles I linked to, they contribute to the number one cause of accidents - not concentrating on the road.
The effect of this also is that effectively you can drive as recklessly as you want and get away with it, as long as you don't get caught exceeding an arbitrary speed set by a council official who may or may not even use the roads, you're fine.
Every goddamn day I see whole processions of cars tailgating. Now that really IS dangerous. When I rode a little bike, people used to cut in front of me and fill the gap when I left a safe distance of between 2 and 4 seconds.
If people maintained safe following distances and paid attention to the traffic conditions, no non-mechanical accidents would ever happen apart from where traffic intersects at junctions.
I believe I read that safe following distances and the 2 second rule are not part of the UK car test, can someone with a UK driving license confirm this for me?
Effectively this means there is absolutely no point in having a motorway speed limit as motorways HAVE no junctions or natural hazards whatsoever. So long as everyone maintains a safe following distance, you can go at whatever speed you like in complete and total safety.

in those examples, it's not actually the one who drove fast who is to blame, but the moron who acted incorrectly. that doesn't change the point that if the speeds involved were lower there wouldn't be such severe consequences.

The speeds are already low in the vast, vast majority of accidents. The average speed of traffic in central London is something like 8mph. I think it was 3mph before congestion charging.
I hate riding through the city, it's exhausting and highly dangerous. The ancient road network is riddled with infernal one-way systems and extremely narrow roads, utterly bewildering junctions that have people dangerously changing lanes without warning and of course everyone is frustrated and irrational because driving in one of the most congested cities in the world with a road network designed for horse and cart is so frustrating.
I could go out right now, get on the motorway and hold my bike's top speed of about 160mph indefinitely until I ran out of fuel, changing lanes well in advance of vehicles ahead so I don't have to slow down and that would be far, far safer than riding through London.

in general people need to drive more aware and part of that is to drive slowly when the situation requires. in an ideal world speed limits would be obsolete. in RL it's a different story.

Yes, part of it is to drive slowly when the situation requires. Of course it is. Speed limits cannot possibly ever make that decision for you, only an ongoing assessment of the road and traffic conditions can do that.
Speed limits cannot tell you what the situation requires, and therefore they are basically useless. If you drove through London trying to maintain the speed limit, you'd be dead within a few minutes if you were lucky.
If you drove on an uncongested motorway at 30mph, you'd be in serious danger of causing an accident aswell.

i stand by my point and there is nothing you posted that rationally explains why they are useless. you simply ignore factors that exist in RL situations.
but i fully agree that some speed limits are badly placed or incorrectly applied or that the police in some cases reacts really idiotic for banal reasons.

and those sites you posted, i'd take them with a grain of salt.

Take them with a grain of salt then, it doesn't change the fact that the arguments put forward are factually and scientifically bulletproof.
It's you who are ignoring real life factors - real life is a changing and dynamic process, and speed limits are static and therefore irrelevant to a dynamic situation. You haven't refuted anything in any of the articles I posted, which draws logical conclusions from facts.

 

[Qonfused]

I want both of you to get into a head-on collision. Then argue about who was going faster as if it mattered.

 

[Direwolf]

Citing for speed violations would be unnecessary if we were all robots and never let our attention waver and performed all actions safely and correctly every time. Until that's true I'm not going to gripe about them too much.

 

[repiV]

Citing for speed violations would be unnecessary if we were all robots and never let our attention waver and performed all actions safely and correctly every time. Until that's true I'm not going to gripe about them too much.

That doesn't even make any sense.
I've already proven that non-discretionary speed limit enforcement doesn't save lives, and not only that, it actually kills more people.
Where's your proof? All I've heard from anyone else on the subject is opinion, and some "common sense" which is nothing more than the natural result of years of "speed kills" brainwashing, and doesn't stand up to any kind of scrutiny whatsoever.
"Speed kills" is a bit like a 9/11 conspiracy theory...sounds convincing, but it's a load of bollocks and when you actually examine it with science it's clearly wrong.

 

[Parrot of doom]

Well said.

Speed is a contributory factor in all road traffic incidents. Its perfectly obvious. What RepiV is trying to point out that it is only in a very very small percentage of these incidents that speed is the cause of the collision.

A safe and competent driver adjusts their speed continuously to suit the variable conditions they encounter. Amazingly, this is what almost everybody does every single day - if they didn't, they'd be crashing every 10 minutes. Its just that there are many motorists who need further tuition in recognising the hazards that exist.

I would prefer that all licence holders be forced to undertake advanced driver training within a certain period of passing their driving test. I'm a member of the Institute of Advanced Motorists, I passed their test some time ago, but not before I learnt a hell of a lot about safe driving that I didn't know before.

For the price (usually no more than ?100), advanced driving tuition is a bargain compared to the thousands spent on deformable body panels, airbags, traction control systems and many other impressive devices that protect a driver in the event of a collision. The key to safe driving is recognising the warning signs, and avoiding the collision alltogether.

I feel that the focus of road safety should be aimed at the road users, with better education. This is common sense when dealing with children (Green Cross Code, remember that?), but seems to slip the net when it comes to drivers. Drivers are not trusted to be safe - the state apparently must make them safe by removing the onus of responsibility. Make the road safe, and the driver will be safe. I of course am of the opinion that a road is just a road, and is neither safe or dangerous.

Speed limits are blunt instruments aimed at those who do not understand these issues.

 

[Direwolf]

That doesn't even make any sense.
I've already proven that non-discretionary speed limit enforcement doesn't save lives, and not only that, it actually kills more people.
Where's your proof? All I've heard from anyone else on the subject is opinion, and some "common sense" which is nothing more than the natural result of years of "speed kills" brainwashing, and doesn't stand up to any kind of scrutiny whatsoever.
"Speed kills" is a bit like a 9/11 conspiracy theory...sounds convincing, but it's a load of bollocks and when you actually examine it with science it's clearly wrong.

How exactly does one prove that not everyone's perfect, that they'll not be paying attention once in a while, or that they'll react badly to a situation? Yeah, bad and incorrect speed limits suck and can cause harm. And speeding alone doesn't cause random people to die. But none of it matters if you come around a corner and someone's backing out of their driveway, or one of a million other bad situations.

 

[Cole]

I get both viewpoints here.

What RepiV is saying is this,
"Just about any speed is safe as long as general logic and road rules are followed"

The other viewpoint is this,
"When road rules are not followed correctly, speed can mean the difference between an accident and no accident"

Both are right. Personally I would agree that there are plenty of roads that I feel like I can drive 85 on perfectly. A lot of these roads have very minimial traffic. Lets take a look at the Autobahn! For most cars theres no hardset speet limit for about half of the highway. For the most part it's a very safe highway, despite the insane amount of traffic.

Still some speed limits should be in place. For example, speed limits around schools or neighborhoods. I mean imagine if there was a very high speed limit around a big neighborhood. Even if everyone is a perfect driver and we can forget about kids and the such. Imagine trying to backout of a driveway onto the road. Would be much more difficult.

 

[Direwolf]

I think you've pretty much nailed it. Speed limits assume the worst in real world conditions. Yeah they'd barely be necessary if everything went right. But when almost everyone has a car, and uses it daily, the worst is going to happen a LOT.

 

[jverne]

that is why i stand with variable speed limits or higher tolerances for surpassing them and force the cops to asses the situation before blaming you for everything because you were 10% above the speed limit.

i'd wouldn't mind making tests more difficult, but that is just unfair to the drivers who are good anyway. the bad drivers i guess will never learn, no matter what.

speed limits serve as a warning. if they are badly placed it's not their fault, it's the people who designs them and place them.

what more could it be said?!

 

[Parrot of doom]

How exactly does one prove that not everyone's perfect, that they'll not be paying attention once in a while, or that they'll react badly to a situation? Yeah, bad and incorrect speed limits suck and can cause harm. And speeding alone doesn't cause random people to die. But none of it matters if you come around a corner and someone's backing out of their driveway, or one of a million other bad situations.

A good driver will never have a problem with 'coming around a corner and someone's backing out of their driveway', because they won't be driving so fast as not to be able to stop in time.