Mr Whippy
|
| posted on 22/4/09 at 10:55 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Benzine
There's a vid on youtube somewhere (can't find it atm) where a group of people do an experiment with the motorway. They get 3 cars to
drive side by side at the speed limit. After a few miles the tailback was looooong
Edit: found it http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1B-Ox0ZmVIU
[Edited on 22/4/09 by Benzine]
 I'm surprised the British police don't do a similar trick with unmarked cars and leave the last outer lane clear, then just film
and prosecute every car that passes them
There's no way I'd have pass them anyway as it looked so suspicious. The 55mph limit is a real drag though having been there, don't
know what idiot thought that up. Some roads are 70mph though.
Fame is when your old car is plastered all over the internet
|
|
|
|
|
coozer
|
| posted on 22/4/09 at 11:02 AM |
|
|
Well, me point was I'm quite healthy and capable of making me own desisions, don't need any one telling what or how to do things.
There's a nice off camber curve near me that nearly tips the car over at 40mph but it has a 60mph limit. Get it?
Me mam and granny both needed help from the authorities but they stood back and did jack shit.
Bad government policies and bad driving on the road!
quote:
Originally posted by idl1975
What about the person you run into? Do they get a vote, or do they just have to take their chances as well?
I think Mr Ace might be suggesting not that you stay in bed, but that travelling at a safe speed (whatever that is) might be appropriate, if only to
avoid doing a Prince Naseem on some poor bugger.
None of this is, of course, directly relevant to whether a 50 limit will do anything much about the safety of NSL roads, which it probably
won't, as (a) the limit isn't policed on 97% of our NSL roads, (b) prevailing traffic speeds for cars are under 50 on most of those roads
and (c) as hitting stuff at 50 mph is still pretty dangerous, the effect on risk of any speed reduction is going to be very attenuated.
quote:
Originally posted by coozer
quote:
Originally posted by thunderace
50mph it ok have you ever seen the mess when a car hits a van head on on a country road and seen the poor traped 14 year old kid in the front bleed to
death you wont ever forget its last words,i have watched people die a number of times and its not fun a head on at 60mph ,im sure if any of you seen
one you wouldnt be so keen on keeping it 60mph.what if its your wife or kids....
I'll take me chance mate, I understand your liberal nanny state opinion there but its not for me. I want to be free to make my own choices, what
ever they may be. Going off your rant there we should all stay indoors and not get out of bed!
Was once in hospital with my beloved granny, loved her to bits, she was ace. She had a little problem with an aneurysm that had been troubling her for
a few years and needed some attention now.
The conversation went like this...
Doctor:
"She's got an aneurysm that could burst any time Sir, she's 94 so we won't be operating"
Dead by the morning she rests in peace now going to the same place as her daughter, my mother, who suffocated slowly from Motor Neuron Disease a few
years before.
So, I'll take me chances on the road at 60mph, if I have an accident that's my fault then I deserve to die thanks.
Its bad driving, not speeding that kills...
1972 V8 Jago
1980 Z750
|
|
|
flak monkey
|
| posted on 22/4/09 at 11:02 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by off-road-ham
Hi, does anyone on here remember when the speed limit was 50 on roads and 60 on duel carrageways.
Never happened did it?
NSL used to be 70mph back in the day. When motorways first came about they were derestricted, no speed limit until a few spoiled it for the rest of
us.
I agree with others though, things like this will continue to happen and be passed unless enough people get up and make a stand. Unfortunately this
needs to be a majority, and with 40million drivers in the UK thats a lot of people to get the message out to! I am actively encouraging everyone I
know to protest the planned NSL cut. But its all very well someone saying they want to do something about it, but you can guarantee that 90% of people
wont.
David
[Edited on 22/4/09 by flak monkey]
Sera
http://www.motosera.com
|
|
|
off-road-ham
|
| posted on 22/4/09 at 11:08 AM |
|
|
1974: New speed limit to curb fuel use.
I think it is the gov trying to put spin on it to keep some loby group happy.
If they were to say it was on eco grounds it would be difficault to argue against.
Reducing death - ~I don't think so because somany people are killed because someone does something stupid, probably driving at a speed beyond
their cars, and their, ability thus a collision occurs.
|
|
|
flak monkey
|
| posted on 22/4/09 at 11:08 AM |
|
|
The other big issue here is the plan to fit a lot more 'specs' average speed cameras on all the major A roads to 'police'
these changes rather than rely on the common sense of traffic officers to do it. The new generation of cameras can track average speeds for up to
10miles quite accurately enough, which would mean only needing to fit one camera at every junction on the major roads affected by the changes.
It is quite blatently a rediculous idea. People drive at 50 in a 60 now to 'be safe' incase theres a camera round the corner. I can just
picture everyone driving at 40 in a 50 for the same reason....imagine the conjestion!
Sera
http://www.motosera.com
|
|
|
smart51
|
| posted on 22/4/09 at 11:09 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by off-road-ham
Hi, does anyone on here remember when the speed limit was 50 on roads and 60 on duel carrageways.
Was that in the '73 oil crisis?
My dad remembers the national speed limit being 70 on all roads before being reduced to 60 on single carriageways in 1978.
Have you noticed it was a labour governent who introduced the limit, a labour government who reduced it and a labour government who want to reduce it
again?
|
|
|
A1
|
| posted on 22/4/09 at 11:36 AM |
|
|
aye-cause labours just another word for nazi. theyre slowly but surely taking away all freedom of thought or actions.
just think of how many times a day youre told you cant do something...
|
|
|
ashg
|
| posted on 22/4/09 at 11:46 AM |
|
|
quote:
Considering the cars are tested at 35mph, reducing the speed by 10 ain't going to do very much if head on crashes are 100mph.
it wont be 100mph it will be 50mph. if both cars are going 50mph and hit each other the speed of the crash will be 50mph not 100mph as they cancel
each other out.
simple physics.
and lowering the speed limit to 50 wont make any difference. people will still speed and people will still do silly things and crash
investment in improving the country roads is what is needed
Anything With Tits or Wheels Will cost you MONEY!!
Haynes Roadster (Finished)
Exocet (Finished & Sold)
New Project (Started)
|
|
|
cd.thomson
|
| posted on 22/4/09 at 11:49 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by ashg
it wont be 100mph it will be 50mph. if both cars are going 50mph and hit each other the speed of the crash will be 50mph not 100mph as they cancel
each other out.
simple physics.
err, what?
Craig
|
|
|
bigbravedave
|
| posted on 22/4/09 at 11:54 AM |
|
|
The problem is the line after national speed limit... "where safe to do so" alot of avoidable accidents are under the national speed
limits but above a safe speed for the conditions layout etc.
If you blanket 50mph on rural roads, most people drive at 50 mph half asleep because well... its a 50 limit, it must be safe to do well... 50. why
look out for all the hazards.......crunch!
|
|
|
dhutch
|
| posted on 22/4/09 at 11:56 AM |
|
|
quote:
The fact that the speed limit was lower than they were prepared to stick to means that an even lower limit will do nothing but make the
situation worse. The best thing is to review each road and put a limit that meets that particular stretch and proper road signs to indicate the
hazards.
Well thats the thing isnt it.
- Of this preposed 3000 that where killed on nsl 60mph roads, i would bet that atleast half where at the time breaking the speed limit.
After a bit of a wakeup call having recently been got doing 51 in a 30 on my own road (an straight section of streetlit a-road ringroad at 11 at night
for what diffence it makes) i have since then stuck 100% religiuosly to all speed limits for the last 2months, and crikey its something everyone
should try once in a while because there not very fast compaired to the speeds most drive at.
Daniel
|
|
|
Mr Whippy
|
| posted on 22/4/09 at 12:01 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by ashg
quote:
Considering the cars are tested at 35mph, reducing the speed by 10 ain't going to do very much if head on crashes are 100mph.
it wont be 100mph it will be 50mph. if both cars are going 50mph and hit each other the speed of the crash will be 50mph not 100mph as they cancel
each other out.
simple physics.
? your having a laugh yeah?! 
Fame is when your old car is plastered all over the internet
|
|
|
dhutch
|
| posted on 22/4/09 at 12:03 PM |
|
|
quote:
It wont be 100mph it will be 50mph. if both cars are going 50mph and hit each other the speed of the crash will be 50mph not 100mph as they
cancel each other out.
Well.
E=M V^2
- Where M is mass (a scaler unit) and V is velocity (a vector unit).
Hence if two cars meet at opersite directions (velocitys).
M*V^2 + M*-V^2 = 0 and nothing moves any further.
However, that still doesnt mean that the closing speed isnt 100mph. Becuase unlike velocity, speed is a scaler and has no directional part. 50mph is
50mph. And 50 & 50 is 100.
Your right that the net result is zero movment. But all that energy has gone in to car bending and people squashing!!
Daniel
|
|
|
hughpinder
|
| posted on 22/4/09 at 12:04 PM |
|
|
I seem to remember from long past that one of the insurance firms stated that every 10mph you reduce your peak speed by reduces the number of
accidents by a factor of 2. I think on an earlier post someone said 27% of fatal accidents occur on the roads affected by this bill, so the number of
lives saved per year would be about 450 IF PEOPLE BOTHER TO STICK TO THE LIMIT. Since noone around here seems to bother with the current speed limits
I doubt it'll make that much difference. Also, in a standard car its pretty difficult to average 50 down the narrow back lanes I travel on -
obviously easy on straighter A and B roads. How many lifetimes will be wasted as extra time sat getting from A to B each year? My journey to work
would increase by about 8 minutes per day (45 miles round trip) - thats 1070 extra hours lost over a 40 year working life!
Hugh
|
|
|
richardlee237
|
| posted on 22/4/09 at 12:34 PM |
|
|
quote:
it wont be 100mph it will be 50mph. if both cars are going 50mph and hit each other the speed of the crash will be 50mph not 100mph as they cancel
each other out.
Reminds me of when I was at University and we proved that the faster you went over a crossroads the less likely you were to have an accident.
If the chances of an accident are dependant upon the time you are within the crossrads(delta t) then as delta t tends to zero the chances of an
accident tend to zero. Simple
Quote Lord Kelvin
“Large increases in cost with questionable increases in performance can be tolerated only in race horses and women.”
Quote Richard Lee
"and cars"
|
|
|
smart51
|
| posted on 22/4/09 at 12:57 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by hughpinder
I seem to remember from long past that one of the insurance firms stated that every 10mph you reduce your peak speed by reduces the number of
accidents by a factor of 2. I think on an earlier post someone said 27% of fatal accidents occur on the roads affected by this bill, so the number of
lives saved per year would be about 450 IF PEOPLE BOTHER TO STICK TO THE LIMIT.
The department for transport say 200-250 lives per year will be saved by this change, out of the 3,000 or so who die on the roads per year. Compare
with 113,000 people who die of smoking and you see that the numbers are quite small.
|
|
|
smart51
|
| posted on 22/4/09 at 12:59 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by A1
aye-cause labours just another word for nazi.
I think you mean fascist. The Nazis were also fascist. New Labour aren't quite fascist but they're heading in that direction pretty
quickly.
|
|
|
tegwin
|
| posted on 22/4/09 at 04:02 PM |
|
|
I had a thought on the way home....
The marketing campaign to get the word out about the speed limit changes and physically changing the signs is going to run into the hundreds of
millions of pounds bracket........ THAT is a waste of money.... what is the point??!!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Would the last person who leaves the country please switch off the lights and close the door!
www.verticalhorizonsmedia.tv
|
|
|
rf900rush
|
| posted on 22/4/09 at 04:24 PM |
|
|
How can two cars passing at 50mph opposed to 60mph make any difference.
Surley one has to be on the wrong side of the road to cause an accident.
Stupidity, not looking, carelessness etc causes accidents !
Hopefully all the sh*t being talked in the houses of parliment will cause a build up of methane gas and blow our current batch of mp's into
space or somthing, then we can get a whole new set 
|
|
|
dave1888
|
| posted on 22/4/09 at 04:29 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by tegwin
I had a thought on the way home....
The marketing campaign to get the word out about the speed limit changes and physically changing the signs is going to run into the hundreds of
millions of pounds bracket........ THAT is a waste of money.... what is the point??!!
And who's going to pay for it, muggins of course. presumably they will use the road fund license money after all there not spending it on the
roads.
|
|
|
