M6 motorway speeds?
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: Ret. on 30 Jun 2010 17:11 Mike P wrote: > On 30 June, 10:39, bod <bodro...(a)tiscali.co.uk> wrote: >> Adrian wrote: >>> bod <bodro...(a)tiscali.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like >>> they were saying: >> >>>>>> But *he* hasn't been done for speeding. Where's the problem? >> >>>>> Has his licence remained clean because his speed is always >>>>> appropriate for the conditions, or has it remained clean because >>>>> he's careful to only speed a little bit? >> >>>>> Which is less inappropriate? 32mph through an urban area 30 limit >>>>> with many pedestrians or 50mph through a rural 30 with nobody >>>>> else about and excellent sightlines? >> >>>> The former, but that is a loaded question. >> >>> Only in that it's difficult to give a straight answer and conform >>> to Kev's standpoint - that it's primarily the risk of being caught >>> which is the upper bound of acceptable speeds above the limit. >> >>> >>> >> >> I'm sure Kev doesn't just mindlessly push the speed limit without >> giving due consideration to the conditions at the time. > > > Neither do I. > > The difference here is that I have a mind. Kevin doesn't appear to. > He doesn't appear to think about anything, just blindly follows rules > written by the ACPO, or believes whatever he sees in the Wail/ > Telegraph etc. > > I expect he's one of those idiots you see charging through a 50 zone > at 58 in heavy traffic in pissing rain, because it's the speed limit > and he knows he won't get done because the ACPO says so. Then you expect wrong Mike. I have a Police Grade 1 Advanced Driving Certificate. Uk driving qualifications don't come any higher. What driving qualifications do you hold? -- Kev
From: Ret. on 30 Jun 2010 17:14 Adrian wrote: > bod <bodron57(a)tiscali.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like they > were saying: > >>>>>> But *he* hasn't been done for speeding. Where's the problem? > >>>>> Has his licence remained clean because his speed is always >>>>> appropriate for the conditions, or has it remained clean because >>>>> he's careful to only speed a little bit? >>>>> >>>>> Which is less inappropriate? 32mph through an urban area 30 limit >>>>> with many pedestrians or 50mph through a rural 30 with nobody else >>>>> about and excellent sightlines? > >>>> The former, but that is a loaded question. > >>> Only in that it's difficult to give a straight answer and conform to >>> Kev's standpoint - that it's primarily the risk of being caught >>> which is the upper bound of acceptable speeds above the limit. > >> I'm sure Kev doesn't just mindlessly push the speed limit without >> giving due consideration to the conditions at the time. > > I don't know. However I do know that he appears to mindlessly stay > close to the limit where a higher speed would be perfectly safe and > (otherwise) appropriate for the conditions at the time. > > Which suggests to me that he does indeed believe the speed limit > plays an important part in defining what's a safe and otherwise > appropriate speed. Which, further, suggests that he's one of the many > millions of drivers who think that a legal speed is automatically > appropriate. Not at all. I remain fairly close to the limits because I am not prepared to risk a fine and points on my licence. I have driven faster, and for more sustained periods, on UK public roads, than you have ever done Adrian. The difference is that I have been specifically trained to do just that - and you haven't. -- Kev
From: Ret. on 30 Jun 2010 17:16 bod wrote: > Adrian wrote: >> bod <bodron57(a)tiscali.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like >> they were saying: >> >>>>>>> But *he* hasn't been done for speeding. Where's the problem? >> >>>>>> Has his licence remained clean because his speed is always >>>>>> appropriate for the conditions, or has it remained clean because >>>>>> he's careful to only speed a little bit? >>>>>> >>>>>> Which is less inappropriate? 32mph through an urban area 30 limit >>>>>> with many pedestrians or 50mph through a rural 30 with nobody >>>>>> else about and excellent sightlines? >> >>>>> The former, but that is a loaded question. >> >>>> Only in that it's difficult to give a straight answer and conform >>>> to Kev's standpoint - that it's primarily the risk of being caught >>>> which is the upper bound of acceptable speeds above the limit. >> >>> I'm sure Kev doesn't just mindlessly push the speed limit without >>> giving due consideration to the conditions at the time. >> >> I don't know. However I do know that he appears to mindlessly stay >> close to the limit where a higher speed would be perfectly safe and >> (otherwise) appropriate for the conditions at the time. >> >> Which suggests to me that he does indeed believe the speed limit >> plays an important part in defining what's a safe and otherwise >> appropriate speed. Which, further, suggests that he's one of the >> many millions of drivers who think that a legal speed is >> automatically appropriate. > > I do agree that the speed limit can sensibly be overridden (where > conditions allow). I remember driving on some motorways and averaging > between a 100 and 110 for quite some time. Most of the traffic flow > was doing similar speeds and I considered it perfectly safe to do so. But - driving at those speeds, you risk being picked up by a cop with a speed gun on a tripod on an overpass - and by the time you see him he will have been monitoring your speed for some distance. That speed will invariably mean an automatic ban (with all the nasty implications that will mean for future insurance cover and premiums). You may feel it worth the risk - I don't, and that is why I will not drive at such speeds. -- Kev
From: Ret. on 30 Jun 2010 17:27 Mike P wrote: > On 29 June, 12:07, bod <bodro...(a)tiscali.co.uk> wrote: >> bod wrote: >>> Mike P wrote: >>>> On 29 June, 11:32, bod <bodro...(a)tiscali.co.uk> wrote: >>>>> Mike P wrote: >>>>>> On 29 June, 11:14, bod <bodro...(a)tiscali.co.uk> wrote: >>>>>>> boltar2...(a)boltar.world wrote: >>>>>>>> On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 10:57:51 +0100 >>>>>>>> bod <bodro...(a)tiscali.co.uk> wrote: >>>>>>>>> And what about the largest category of having accidents then; >>>>>>>>> the youngsters who have recently *passed* their tests. >>>>>>>>> Apparently, they have about 1 in 4 of all accidents. In >>>>>>>>> general, older >>>>>>>>> drivers have the best safety record of all. Insurance >>>>>>>>> companies back these facts up. >>>>>>>> I also happen to think that 17 is too young to be able to >>>>>>>> drive a 1 ton >>>>>>>> car on the roads. As for older drivers having the best safety >>>>>>>> records - the >>>>>>>> probably also do the least miles. I reckon if you looked on the >>>>>>>> accident >>>>>>>> rate on a per mile basis (which insurance companies don't do) >>>>>>>> then it wouldn't >>>>>>>> be quite so rosy. Also it doesn't take account of the >>>>>>>> accidents they indirectly cause due to frustrated drivers >>>>>>>> behind taking risks. B2003 >>>>>>> Yes, but at what minimum age would you recommend to obtain a >>>>>>> driving licence then? >>>>>> I'd say 18 is an ok age, with a restriction on what you can >>>>>> drive for 2 years - similar to the 33BHP limit with new >>>>>> motorbike riders. Restrict young drivers to cars less than 70bhp >>>>>> for 2 years and give them *big* incentives not to crash.. >>>>>> Mike P >>>>> Hmm, sounds reasonable and do-able. You'd need to have the >>>>> insurance companies on their side though, ie; lower premiums. >> >>>> They do (or did) something similar in Italy, hence you can (or >>>> could) buy some really strange cars you couldn't buy anywhere >>>> else. A 1.1 litre Citroen BX was one I remember.. >> >>>> The premiums could be slightly less to start with, but with a >>>> promised big reduction if after the qualifying period of 2 or 3 >>>> years they are accident and points free. I don't believe the >>>> present system of 6 points before 2 years and you retake your test >>>> again makes a blind bit of difference. Those who are going to >>>> drive illegally will drive illegally whatever.. >> >>>> Mike P >> >>> I'd agree with you on the 'test retake', that just seems a little >>> daft. If they've passed a UK driving test, which is pretty >>> thorough, they aren't likely to learn anything from taking another >>> one so soon. >>> An awareness course for when they obtain the 6 points might be a >>> better option and more palatable for the offenders? >> >>> Bod >> >>> >>> >> >> By an awareness course, I mean maybe one or two sessions of being >> shown graphic videos and accounts of horrific crashes involving >> youngsters just like them.... and I mean very graphic, so much so >> that it stays in their minds. >> >> Waddya think? > > Too easy. People see that sort of thing all the time in violent films. > > Make them spend some time in a mortuary or doing post mortems on > accident victims. When I first started corresponding with a California Highway Patrolman, he subscribed me to their monthly magazine. As well as being the magazine for the CHP, it is also sold in newsagents for the public. I was astonished at the accident photographs in the magazines - often showing dead bodies in situ with horrendous injuries - and often with the persons face in clear view and clearly recognisable to anyone who might know them. I was used to dealing with such things - but my wife was horrified by the pictures. It's one thing seeing 'faked' injuries in movies - it's entirely another seeing actual dead bodies with missing limbs, or having been burnt alive in a wrecked car. -- Kev
From: Adrian on 30 Jun 2010 18:04
Mike P <mikewpearson1(a)gmail.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: > He could look at many owners forums - the Puma and MX-5 ones for a > start, to find out why the P6000 are nicknamed Ditchfinders.. When I bought the XM one tyre was borderline illegal - so, as part of the deal, the seller said he'd put a "name-brand" tyre on. Yup, a P6000. I found it in the lock-up at the weekend. A decade later. Still with near-new tread. |