Increase in Prison Sentence for Dangerous Driving

I wonder what the stopping distance of the car being driven at twice the speed limit was. Or the reaction time difference. Compared to a car being driven at half the speed, that is.

If you can stop in half the distance of the road that you can see then it's deemed safe by the IAM, those guys that know more about driving than you do.

Aside from the environmental aspects, I'm personally not that fussed about speed limits on motorways. I'd happily have no speed limits on motorways, in return for 20mph in all residential areas and city centres.
fuel consumption.

That's paritly why 70mph were chosen (and hasn't changed even when technology got better) not just the braking distance of the car, the reaction time, etc. But 70mph is a good speed to get a decent mpg when you're driving for a long distance.

Hving says that my average on motorway were 80mph, any higher would drink a few bit of fuel left.

Aside from the environmental aspects, I'm personally not that fussed about speed limits on motorways. I'd happily have no speed limits on motorways, in return for 20mph in all residential areas and city centres.
fuel consumption.

That partly why 70mph were chosen (and hasn't changed even when technology got better) not just the braking distance of the car, the reaction time, etc. But 70mph is a good speed to get a decent mpg when you're driving for a long distance.

Hving says that my average on motorway were 80mph, any higher would drink a few bit of fuel left.

That doesn't really answer the question though, does it. It just comes across as being punchy, and making assumptions about how much I know about driving.

I apologise if I came across as agressive or confrontational, it just gets tiring that everyone on here seems to jump on the anti-car bandwagon, debates like this are really not suited to this forum as there's a lot of cycling enthusiasts, and a handfuly of car enthusiasts, most of which are afriad to speak out about. I'll bring it up on pistonheads and get a more balanced view =P

BTW Tiswas, it wasn't intended as offensive, but the amount of IAM members is relatively small to the extent that I can safely assume you're not a member.

I thought that received wisdom was the post-war USA limit of 55 mph was based on fuel economy?

Wikipedia has the answers, it seems.

I edited my post as 'originally' implied that the first motorway speed limit was 70mph.

Yes, post-war (or lack thereof) US have 55mph limit due to th car at the time drinking fuel like fishes.

Nowadays it's 65-70mph ithink, couldn't check the link, i'mon a mobile phone.

Aside from the environmental aspects, I'm personally not that fussed about speed limits on motorways. I'd happily have no speed limits on motorways, in return for 20mph in all residential areas and city centres.

fuel consumption.

That's paritly why 70mph were chosen (and hasn't changed even when technology got better) not just the braking distance of the car, the reaction time, etc. But 70mph is a good speed to get a decent mpg when you're driving for a long distance.

Hving says that my average on motorway were 80mph, any higher would drink a few bit of fuel left.

:P

I apologise if I came across as agressive or confrontational, it just gets tiring that everyone on here seems to jump on the anti-car bandwagon, debates like this are really not suited to this forum as there's a lot of cycling enthusiasts, and a handfuly of car enthusiasts, most of which are afriad to speak out about. I'll bring it up on pistonheads and get a more balanced view =P

Why would you say that campaigning for safer driving is anti-car? I don't see any sentiments in this thread that are specifically anti-car. Anti shit driving maybe, but surely that's not an unreasonable sentiment.

:P

I didn't says anything about the enivormental impact, just the fuel you have to pay.

I didn't says anything about the enivormental impact, just the fuel you have to pay.

Sorry, thought you were making an argument against abolishing speed limits on motorways. Fuel consumption isn't an issue, outside of the environmental harm. You just pay more if you want to go faster.

On a related note: once, when I was a very skint student*, I drove the whole way from Manchester to Glasgow at 55mph in an ancient VW Polo. TBH, that was probably the most dangerous piece of driving I've ever done. Certainly the other motorway users seemed to think so.

*C.f. my current status as very skint unemployed English teacher

True, however judging how dangerous you're driving purely on speed, with all due respect, is a fucking stupid idea.

I have been in a car with drivers who regularly break the speed limit, but they are good drivers, they know how to handle a car properly, at times I have been in cars going over twice the speed limit, but still felt safe, because I knew the car was being driven by a skilled driver. I have never, ever been more afraid in a car than when I was in my mates car a few months after he got his licence, 15 minutes of pure terror. Not once did he even approach the speed limit.

Fast driving does not mean dangerous driving, people need to learn that.

To infer that driving at higher speeds is not any more dangerous than driving at slower speeds is an old and very silly argument.
Of course, it's so very obvious that skilled drivers can handle a car at high speeds better than unskilled ones can at slow speeds (and don't they like to tell people this too - the old 'well if you knew how to drive as well as I do' argument...)
But, the fact is that (beyond passing a once-in-a-lifetime test) driver skill is largely irrelevant in everyday life - it is both immeasurable and and too highly variable to be able to base legislation upon.

To suggest that speed *doesn't *kill simply because a minority of people somewhere in the world are skilled at driving at high speeds, means that the majority of people, who are useless at driving, will still be causing accidents because they are driving too fast.
Reducing speed limits does reduce accident mortalities, because the sad truth is, not everyone is as good at driving really really fast as your mates are. And there's a very good chance that they aren't as good at driving fast as their mates think they are.

It's Latin, innit.

I edited my post as 'originally' implied that the first motorway speed limit was 70mph.

Yes, post-war (or lack thereof) US have 55mph limit due to th car at the time drinking fuel like fishes.

Nowadays it's 65-70mph ithink, couldn't check the link, i'mon a mobile phone.

That makes no sense.

That makes no sense.

I think he said he couldn't check the link because he is driving and on the phone.

To infer that driving at higher speeds is not any more dangerous than driving at slower speeds is an old and very silly argument.
Of course, it's so very obvious that skilled drivers can handle a car at high speeds better than unskilled ones can at slow speeds (and don't they like to tell people this too - the old 'well if you knew how to drive as well as I do' argument...)
But, the fact is that (beyond passing a once-in-a-lifetime test) driver skill is largely irrelevant in everyday life - it is both immeasurable and and too highly variable to be able to base legislation upon.

To suggest that speed *doesn't *kill simply because a minority of people somewhere in the world are skilled at driving at high speeds, means that the majority of people, who are useless at driving, will still be causing accidents because they are driving too fast.
Reducing speed limits does reduce accident mortalities, because the sad truth is, not everyone is as good at driving really really fast as your mates are. And there's a very good chance that they aren't as good at driving fast as their mates think they are.

Fully agree. It is a very silly point to make. I consider myself a pretty good fast driver (doesn't everyone!) but there is no way I can argue that it is just as safe for me to drive at 60 as it is at 30.
I may be safer at 60 than someone else at 30 but they probably shouldn't be on the road. And it still misses the point that I would be even safer at 30.

Imagine how many fatal/nasty accidents there would be if the maximum speed of a car was 10mph, not many eh?

In France all drivers are better than the other drivers.

86% of all drivers are better than average.

Define average. The average driving I see in London is shit.

To infer that driving at higher speeds is not any more dangerous than driving at slower speeds is an old and very silly argument.
Of course, it's so very obvious that skilled drivers can handle a car at high speeds better than unskilled ones can at slow speeds (and don't they like to tell people this too - the old 'well if you knew how to drive as well as I do' argument...)
But, the fact is that (beyond passing a once-in-a-lifetime test) driver skill is largely irrelevant in everyday life - it is both immeasurable and and too highly variable to be able to base legislation upon.

To suggest that speed *doesn't *kill simply because a minority of people somewhere in the world are skilled at driving at high speeds, means that the majority of people, who are useless at driving, will still be causing accidents because they are driving too fast.
Reducing speed limits does reduce accident mortalities, because the sad truth is, not everyone is as good at driving really really fast as your mates are. And there's a very good chance that they aren't as good at driving fast as their mates think they are.

I'm sorry, but I did not say that driving faster is as safe or safer than driving at lower speeds, my point is that basing the danger of someone's driving on their speed is a fucking stupid idea.

Yes, reducing speed limits will reduce deaths on the roads, why not reduce the speed limit to 5mph?

The person I was referring to about driving fast is without doubt the best driver I have ever been in a car with, and i've been in a car with some very good drivers. I wouldn't have complete confidence in his abilities otherwise.

Being safe and obeying the law are not always the same thing, i'm sure as cyclists this is something we can agree on. In the same way as breaking a red light can be perfectly safe (prepares to don flame suit) breaking the speed limit can be perfectly safe.

Unfortunately a large number drivers on the road want to be told how to drive as opposed too thinking for themselves, which is why I can't wait for public transport to be improved to the point where anyone who drives on the road is doing so purely because they enjoy it.

"But, the fact is that (beyond passing a once-in-a-lifetime test) driver skill is largely irrelevant in everyday life - it is both immeasurable and and too highly variable to be able to base legislation upon."

The once in a lifetime test, i'm assuming that's the standard test we're talking about? If so, I agree on that, the driving test at the minute is ridiculous. It really does need a revamp, also I think refresher courses should be compulsory to stop people's abilities dropping off as much as they seem to. However if more people took proper driver training, I can guarantee the roads would be much safer.

The second part of that is the real problem with law and driving, it's hard to measure dangerous driving, so they base danger on the one quantifiable thing, speed, purely to make their job easier, which is not proportional to danger.

We need to make it easier to report dangerous drivers, maybe implement a 3 strikes system or something similar. But if we continue judging danger on speed, we'll take all of the enjoyment out of driving and people will just get frustrated and they'll be even more dangerous.

Imagine if you were limited to 15mph on your bike as higher speeds expose you to a much higher risk in a crash, imagine the freedom that's taken away from you because some numpty who doesn't even cycle doesn't want other numpties to cause higher speed accidents.

Anyways this post is pretty long as it is so i'll finish here, thanks for reading, apologies if I took up too much of your time.

In France all drivers are better than the other drivers.

I'd agree that they're probably better than the drivers over here, is it true that they have different speed limits for wet & dry weather? I heard that a while back and think it's a great idea.

To infer that driving at higher speeds is not any more dangerous than driving at slower speeds is an old and very silly argument.
Of course, it's so very obvious that skilled drivers can handle a car at high speeds better than unskilled ones can at slow speeds (and don't they like to tell people this too - the old 'well if you knew how to drive as well as I do' argument...)
But, the fact is that (beyond passing a once-in-a-lifetime test) driver skill is largely irrelevant in everyday life - it is both immeasurable and and too highly variable to be able to base legislation upon.

To suggest that speed *doesn't *kill simply because a minority of people somewhere in the world are skilled at driving at high speeds, means that the majority of people, who are useless at driving, will still be causing accidents because they are driving too fast.
Reducing speed limits does reduce accident mortalities, because the sad truth is, not everyone is as good at driving really really fast as your mates are. And there's a very good chance that they aren't as good at driving fast as their mates think they are.

+1.

20 mph in built up areas please.

if they want to drive fast do it on a track where the danger is internalised. (then we will see how good there driving is).

imo this proposal for 20 mph is superb news. and long overdue.

in my life i have lost three friends to road crashes (two were car occupants the other a motor bike rider). all the deaths were due to excessive speeds.

over time i think 20 mph will transform all of our lives. f**kin ace ace ace.

I
The person I was referring to about driving fast is without doubt the best driver I have ever been in a car with, and i've been in a car with some very good drivers. I wouldn't have complete confidence in his abilities otherwise.

You know that, I don't.

when you're in the car with him, you know he's a 'safe' driver.

when I'm on my bike and the car overtook me 5-7mph over the limit, even if he gave me some room, I'd think "fucking hell, slow down you twat".

he may be a safe driver going over the limit, but it won't win the heart of other commuters.

I
Being safe and obeying the law are not always the same thing, i'm sure as cyclists this is something we can agree on. In the same way as breaking a red light can be perfectly safe (prepares to don flame suit) breaking the speed limit can be perfectly safe.
.

Moot.

you can be safe without needing to jump red light.

Someone may enjoy driving but driving is primarily a utilitarian activity, if someone requires more speed to enjoy driving then it is unfair to expect others to except a grater risk just for their own pleasure.

Of course if everyone was as IAM standards then safety would improve however this does not mean that it logically follows that you can have higher speed limits. Risk compensation amongst other factors become an issue, we are dealing with human beings here. Even if we ignore risk compensation the idea that speed does not increase danger is poor, no one is saying it is the only factor but it is a major one. As you state speed may not be directly proportional to risk but the correlation is most defiantly a positive one. You can not state that increasing the energy of a vechial 4 times by doubleing the speed does not increase the general risk.

Regarding driving in urban areas there is little to be gained from driving fast, because by the nature of driving in urban environment the speed will be for a very very short amount of time. As I stated in my earlier post most urban roads are residential or busy high streets so not suitable for 30 mph anyhow. In a non urban environment then there are still very few times when braking the speed limit is possible for all but a short amount of time, the gain is very small, and again you are expecting others to take on extra risk for someone else's pleasure.

You say why not reduce the speed limit to 5mph? well diminishing returns, I can't remember the exact numbers but the gain (% survival rate in a collision) vs loss of speed 30->20 mph is worth while, I expect the gain from 20 -10 would not bring what would be deemed as sufficient gains, similarly for 10-5mph.

Why would you say that campaigning for safer driving is anti-car? I don't see any sentiments in this thread that are specifically anti-car. Anti shit driving maybe, but surely that's not an unreasonable sentiment.

Then explain to me the reaction of most of the forum to devolving the power to issue on the spot fines for RLJ to council officers in Westminster?

To follow my first post I ended up driving down the M3 at approx 65mph due to the conditions.

The parallel I am trying to draw attention to is that we as cyclists saw a crackdown on RLJ as inimical to us as cyclists- when if we followed the same values as we preach to car drivers we should welcome a draconian crackdown as it will increase safety.

The hippocracy of our position is rather comical.