Pollik
Guest
[No message]
Viktor
Guest
I think the biggest problem with drivers in the UK is both impulsiveness and impatience which leads to a sudden decision
to manouvre - sudden switch of lanes, left or right turn which results in failing to check if it's safe to do so, and a pull into
someone's path. I agree about the overtake too. I've seen people overtake at the craziest places and in crazy distances
forcing others to brake only to sit 20 yards behind them at the next junction.
It's the impulse which usually causes an accident. Even myself I often have to remind myself not to get into that way of
thinking and to make no change of direction on impulse. That is what causes most accidents.
to manouvre - sudden switch of lanes, left or right turn which results in failing to check if it's safe to do so, and a pull into
someone's path. I agree about the overtake too. I've seen people overtake at the craziest places and in crazy distances
forcing others to brake only to sit 20 yards behind them at the next junction.
It's the impulse which usually causes an accident. Even myself I often have to remind myself not to get into that way of
thinking and to make no change of direction on impulse. That is what causes most accidents.
Pollik
Guest
The French do a lot of that too.
Channa
Full Member
- Posts
- 0
- Likes
- 0
I would agree that motorway driving should be part of the driving test.
But how long does a driving test last ? 40 minutes or thereabouts ? ........My point is that the candidate only has to ' hold it together' for 40 mins or so to get their ticket to be let loose on the highways.
And as for the theory test, it remains that theory. only use when put into practise.
So does 'holding it together' for 40 minutes make a driver?
Competence is safely making progress whilst aware of other road users ? Speed is a factor in this, Just because it says 40 mph doesnt mean it is safe to do so .......eg fog or heavy congestion.
A previous post gave a good example of where speed killed when a motorcyclist didnt foresee a traffic jam.
Re training ...;is sadly whilst attractive an unviable proposition. The logisitcs alone, plus the fact you are back to the 'hold it together' factor.
I believe that the lack of standard, and general inability of drivers to accomodate other road users is sufficient reason to leave things as they are.
FWIW I am not anti up the speed limit as such, I just have serious reservations re the ability of the general road user to accomodate any increase.
Channa
But how long does a driving test last ? 40 minutes or thereabouts ? ........My point is that the candidate only has to ' hold it together' for 40 mins or so to get their ticket to be let loose on the highways.
And as for the theory test, it remains that theory. only use when put into practise.
So does 'holding it together' for 40 minutes make a driver?
Competence is safely making progress whilst aware of other road users ? Speed is a factor in this, Just because it says 40 mph doesnt mean it is safe to do so .......eg fog or heavy congestion.
A previous post gave a good example of where speed killed when a motorcyclist didnt foresee a traffic jam.
Re training ...;is sadly whilst attractive an unviable proposition. The logisitcs alone, plus the fact you are back to the 'hold it together' factor.
I believe that the lack of standard, and general inability of drivers to accomodate other road users is sufficient reason to leave things as they are.
FWIW I am not anti up the speed limit as such, I just have serious reservations re the ability of the general road user to accomodate any increase.
Channa
Channa
Full Member
- Posts
- 0
- Likes
- 0
And you think that by increasing a speed limit everyone zooming around quicker would be less stressful ? Especially if the motorwayys are dense in traffic ?
If safety is the key issue rather than limits, then the lower limit should be favoured .i;e more drivers are able to cope
Channa
Channa
Full Member
- Posts
- 0
- Likes
- 0
scampa
Full Member
- Posts
- 1,580
- Likes
- 1,211
I must admit that I find this statement a bit worrying!
Anyone who takes part in adventure sports is usually choosing to put only their own life at risk (for example, I very rarely feel at risk of being hit by a falling mountaineer), but every driver on any public road has a responsibility for the safety of other road users, including innocent passengers in their own, or in other vehicles.
Yes, modern vehicles are much more capable and have many more safety systems built in than 40 years ago, but drivers also feel more "cocooned" in a much quieter, smoother and more comfortable "box on wheels". So we often feel a lot safer and more detached from the world outside of our cab, and from the risks that are just as deadly as they ever were....
Even those among us who feel they are more experienced, or even expert drivers, have to share the motorway with other drivers who may be less experienced, less confident, slower to react, or just not concentrating at that moment. The faster we go, the harder it is for other drivers to anticipate and react safely, so the higher the risk of having a collision (which will always be "their fault" of course!).
In my experience, it is just as likely for the innocent road users to be killed or receive some devastating injuries, as it is for the speeding driver.
I also had the same thoughts as Canalsman... if we increased the limit to 80mph then some drivers will just increase their speed above that.
Anyone who takes part in adventure sports is usually choosing to put only their own life at risk (for example, I very rarely feel at risk of being hit by a falling mountaineer), but every driver on any public road has a responsibility for the safety of other road users, including innocent passengers in their own, or in other vehicles.
Yes, modern vehicles are much more capable and have many more safety systems built in than 40 years ago, but drivers also feel more "cocooned" in a much quieter, smoother and more comfortable "box on wheels". So we often feel a lot safer and more detached from the world outside of our cab, and from the risks that are just as deadly as they ever were....
Even those among us who feel they are more experienced, or even expert drivers, have to share the motorway with other drivers who may be less experienced, less confident, slower to react, or just not concentrating at that moment. The faster we go, the harder it is for other drivers to anticipate and react safely, so the higher the risk of having a collision (which will always be "their fault" of course!).
In my experience, it is just as likely for the innocent road users to be killed or receive some devastating injuries, as it is for the speeding driver.
I also had the same thoughts as Canalsman... if we increased the limit to 80mph then some drivers will just increase their speed above that.
Viktor
Guest
I think the original reasoning behind the increase was two fold if I remember reading it correctly.
1. To allow goods and services to be delivered quicker so a delivery might be completed before a
driver might have to take a statutory break
2. To bring many road users back within the law as many habitually travel at around 80mph.
Recently travelling on the M6 and M1 a lot of people passed me over the speed limit so while
there are arguments for and against, I guess only time will tell.
I remember similar arguments over abolishing BST. It was tried, and well we've been back at BST
for some time again having gone full circle, so who knows?
1. To allow goods and services to be delivered quicker so a delivery might be completed before a
driver might have to take a statutory break
2. To bring many road users back within the law as many habitually travel at around 80mph.
Recently travelling on the M6 and M1 a lot of people passed me over the speed limit so while
there are arguments for and against, I guess only time will tell.
I remember similar arguments over abolishing BST. It was tried, and well we've been back at BST
for some time again having gone full circle, so who knows?
Channa
Full Member
- Posts
- 0
- Likes
- 0
Viktor
Guest
Lol...didn't know that....a lot of them are going faster than that. Ha!
Pollik
Guest
The total amount of stress would be one hour less, so yes (if that that was the time saved).
I am not sure I agree with your last comment. One of the problems I see on motorways is people losing focus because there is not enough happening to engage them...so they will gawp at the scenery, reach for that bottle of water that has slipped to the floor, read the newspaper, to mention just a few. Driving at 60 mph on a rural B road requires my full attention...driving at 50 mph on an empty motorway in good, traffic free conditions does not.
Polly
John H
Full Member
- Posts
- 5,537
- Likes
- 3,932
Well, if it doesn't then all I can say is that it should!
Pollik
Guest
I am not sure I understand what you are saying...or perhaps you don't understand me.
I am saying that under the conditions that I specified, there is not enough going on to require my full attention. Of course I am paying attention, in case something happens, but that is not the same as having my full undivided attention.
Are you saying that there is no difference in your levels of concentration between driving at 50 mph on an empty motorway and driving at 60 mph round the Périphérique in the rush hour? I would be very surprised if that were true.
Polly
John H
Full Member
- Posts
- 5,537
- Likes
- 3,932
An odd reply. If you are not paying full attention then how do you know whether or not anything is happening to require your attention?
Don't get me wrong, I am not being holier than thou - we are all guilty of not paying enough attention from time to time but the difference is that I am saying that I know I'm wrong when I don't fully pay attention; you seem to be saying that you don't NEED to fully pay attention and that this should be used as some kind of evidence for increasing the speed limit. I'm sorry but that, to me, is a bizarre thing to say.
As for your Peripherique example - yes you should be FULLY aware all the time. You can do an awful lot of damage to yourself and others at 50 mph when you mistakenly think there is nothing else about. My driving instructor (many, many years ago!) drilled it into me that you should always be prepared for a runaway horse to appear out of nowhere. An extreme example perhaps but it makes the point very well.
Last edited:
Pollik
Guest
I don't think you have responded to the question that I put which was about comparing your personal levels of concentration on the empty motorway and on the peripherique.
The idea of the horse jumping out is a good one. Now place yourself on that observably empty motorway...do you actively focus on all the possible points of entry for a horse, or do you (as I do) glance at it regularly and use one's innate sense of awareness to make sure that there is no current threat/danger. I suspect that you will disagree, but there is a very great difference between active awareness and focussed attention. We are designed to respond to threats and one of those responses is to engage the brain's focus.
Let me try a different example and see if this helps. If you are driving at 70mph at a distance of 1 ft from the vehicle in front, I suspect you would be a great deal keyed up than if you were following the same vehicle at a distance of 150 feet. Different situations demand different levels of concentration.
I think, or perhaps hope, that the difference of opinion between is one of either communication or understanding of the brain's workings, or perhaps just perception.
If you want to absolutely eliminate the danger of driving, then don't drive...anything else is a compromise.
Polly
The idea of the horse jumping out is a good one. Now place yourself on that observably empty motorway...do you actively focus on all the possible points of entry for a horse, or do you (as I do) glance at it regularly and use one's innate sense of awareness to make sure that there is no current threat/danger. I suspect that you will disagree, but there is a very great difference between active awareness and focussed attention. We are designed to respond to threats and one of those responses is to engage the brain's focus.
Let me try a different example and see if this helps. If you are driving at 70mph at a distance of 1 ft from the vehicle in front, I suspect you would be a great deal keyed up than if you were following the same vehicle at a distance of 150 feet. Different situations demand different levels of concentration.
I think, or perhaps hope, that the difference of opinion between is one of either communication or understanding of the brain's workings, or perhaps just perception.
If you want to absolutely eliminate the danger of driving, then don't drive...anything else is a compromise.
Polly
John H
Full Member
- Posts
- 5,537
- Likes
- 3,932
If you are driving at 70mph at a distance of 1 foot from the vehicle in front you are a bloody idiot. NOBODY'S reactions are quick enough to respond to something happening 1 foot in front of them at that speed.
John H
Full Member
- Posts
- 5,537
- Likes
- 3,932
That seems to be a very odd reading of the very clear statement:
"Driving at 60 mph on a rural road requires my full attention....driving at 50mph on an empty motorway in good traffic-free conditions does not".
If Polly meant that we all allow our minds to wander at times and that we are wrong to do so, then she needs to correct the above statement.
"Driving at 60 mph on a rural road requires my full attention....driving at 50mph on an empty motorway in good traffic-free conditions does not".
If Polly meant that we all allow our minds to wander at times and that we are wrong to do so, then she needs to correct the above statement.
Pollik
Guest
John H
Full Member
- Posts
- 5,537
- Likes
- 3,932
Ok - we all make mistakes from time to time and I am glad that we now all seem to be agreeing. But I still take issue with Polly's original point that because our minds tend to wander at 50mph in clear conditions then this is a reason to increase the speed limit. Our minds are just as likely to wander at higher speeds in clear conditions.