Wharncliffe Side speed limits

[Xt500 10]

Given that it's physically impossible to cause an accident by going slowly, I'm amazed that people still try to insist that most accidents are caused by people going slowly.

 

Do stationary objects get blamed for people driving into them? Because if you can't avoid an object moving at 20mph you have even less chance of avoiding one moving at zero.

 

driving safely cannot be judged by a speedo although some think that it can and theres few places its so obvious than here.

When given FACTS why is it some posters ignore the facts and write some drivel not even related to whats being said?

 

The fact is 94% of accidents are NOT caused by speeding drivers they are caused by drivers driving within the speed limits.

Of course if there was no speed then there would be few accidents but were a few years away from that yet.

 

Anyone who drives nowadays knows that its not a few mph thats causing the problems on the roads,its bad attutude and inability and its rife so much so its hit the news......

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2016721/Slow-drivers-dangerous-roads-cause-crashes.html

 

"Slow drivers 'are among most dangerous on roads' and cause crashes"

 

"Slow drivers are one of the biggest dangers on the road and should be treated like speeders, a report says today."

[Xt500 10]

You continue to see everything as black or white and (speed) one-dimensional - is that all your undoubted driving skills and competence base themselves on?

Without getting into a ramble ... driver competence is a subject close to my heart and wallet. It comes in all shapes and sizes and can vary from day to day.

I have seen those that brake (as you would say it) at every lamppost but not every day. What I see every day is unthinking drivers accelerate to a static queue or green-going-on-red light who then have to brake hard to be at the same place two minutes later as everyone else. And, every day, the dimwit driver who drives in damp half-light with no lights on at all. And ... I could go on.

Which is more incompetent, the driver who is not aware of limit points, tyre grip trade off, vehicle dynamics/stability etc or the hare or Mr Invisible?

The OP picks one particular stretch of road that has a 50 limit. I am not particularly familiar with it but, from memory, I would think that you'd have to be slinging the vehicle around a bit on the last two (or three?) bends to still be doing 50 when exiting the bends prior to the change to 40 - hence my comment "limit not target".

My work allows/demands a multi-dimensional approach to driving - you seem to know who employs me, perhaps you could get me a rise? - I am a very progressive driver but I'm also defensive; at times I test myself, at other times I take it steadier. At all times, I take the moving, fixed (seen and unseen) hazard into consideration as well as conditions dictated by the road, weather and time of day/year i.e. everything but driving by numbers. I know my limitations and have to live with other drivers on the road who have their own limitations (how many have checked their tyre pressures recently, how many know what tread they have on each corner and can explain precisely what the tread does and doesn't do at different levels and pressures) - by contrast, you bang on intolerantly and obsessively entirely about speed, low speeders being the probłem which, if you allowed yourself any understanding of what driving competence consists of, you'd know it isn't.

 

Oh

 

Slow drivers are one of the biggest dangers on the road and should be treated like speeders, a report says today.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2016721/Slow-drivers-dangerous-roads-cause-crashes.html#ixzz1hePQhBhM

[DT Ralge 10]

Oh

 

Slow drivers are one of the biggest dangers on the road and should be treated like speeders, a report says today.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2016721/Slow-drivers-dangerous-roads-cause-crashes.html#ixzz1hePQhBhM

 

Must have been a slow news day back in July and it must be true if it's in the Mail.

Actually, reading further down than the headline, DfT reports that 143 accidents (per year - that seems very precise!) are caused directly by slow drivers - Wow, but that's hardly "rife" or an epidemic. Hold on, though, it says they're all in front of you.

Edited December 26, 2011 by DT Ralge

[Penistone999 10]

Given that it's physically impossible to cause an accident by going slowly, I'm amazed that people still try to insist that most accidents are caused by people going slowly.

 

Do stationary objects get blamed for people driving into them? Because if you can't avoid an object moving at 20mph you have even less chance of avoiding one moving at zero.

 

Slow drivers are a pain in the rear ,and cause accidents because people have to overtake them ,and run the risk of hitting an on-coming vehicle.

 

If someone is so incompitant/nervous/scared of driving at a speed to keep up with the flow of traffic ,then ,in my opinion ,they shouldnt be driving at all.

[Xt500 10]

Must have been a slow news day back in July and it must be true if it's in the Mail.

Actually, reading further down than the headline, DfT reports that 143 accidents (per year - that seems very precise!) are caused directly by slow drivers - Wow, but that's hardly "rife" or an epidemic. Hold on, though, it says they're all in front of you.

 

Neither is accidents caused by people a few mph above the speed limit,but you could be forgiven for thinking so.

[Xt500 10]

Slow drivers are a pain in the rear ,and cause accidents because people have to overtake them ,and run the risk of hitting an on-coming vehicle.

 

If someone is so incompitant/nervous/scared of driving at a speed to keep up with the flow of traffic ,then ,in my opinion ,they shouldnt be driving at all.

 

Nor would they have passed a test driving like that,yet some posters here would like us to think that this sub standard driving is ok and more to the point safe,its not!

[serelle 10]

To get back to the original post, I was thinking exactly the same last week when I took that route. I used to live at Wharncliffe Side and I remember when there were signs saying 'slow' as you approached the bends and a 35mph speed limit. Considering the number of accidents and fatalities on these bends over the years, the 50mph sign gives the wrong impression in my opinion.

[beansforyou 10]

To get back to the original post, I was thinking exactly the same last week when I took that route. I used to live at Wharncliffe Side and I remember when there were signs saying 'slow' as you approached the bends and a 35mph speed limit. Considering the number of accidents and fatalities on these bends over the years, the 50mph sign gives the wrong impression in my opinion.

 

You don't remember the National Speed Limit signs then or the 30mph limit being much closer to the village (Oughti) than it is now?

 

Used to be a much more interesting route when it was a 60, plus dealing with all the heavy goods vehicles the bypass now accomodates instead.

 

Add to that the much more reliable vehicles, technology, yet we still have have to put up with those living in the Flintstone age.

[Taximark 10]

I'll never forget the time a car was doing roughly 30-40 mph on a busy motorway i passed it and cars were braking hard as they approached the tool, cars and big trucks having to mover into the other lane unnecessarily, now how is this not dangerous? Don't get me wrong I hate to see little Lewis Hamiltons speeding round housing estates and they too are a menace but it must be also pointed out that those go slow, inconsistent and hesitant drivers are a real problem too.

[Annoni_mouse 10]

Oh

 

Slow drivers are one of the biggest dangers on the road and should be treated like speeders, a report says today.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2016721/Slow-drivers-dangerous-roads-cause-crashes.html#ixzz1hePQhBhM

 

If that's the best you can come up with, I would leave it be if I were you!

 

For a start, that report was compiled by an insurance company and appears to have been based on little more than the opinion of drivers. Hardly a scientific approach, is it?

 

According to the Dept. of Transport, there were 154000* reported road accidents in the UK last year. Using that figure, the number of accidents caused by slow drivers (which according to the report you supplied is a 143) that means that slow driving contributes to 0.09% of all road accidents, if my math is correct. Hardly indicates that slow drivers are 'one of the biggest dangers on the road' does it?

 

On the other hand, you throw about a figure of 94% of accidents not being caused by speeding - meaning that 6% of accidents are (again, according to your stats). That means that out of 154000 accidents, approx. 9200 are as a direct response to speeding.

 

9200 vs 143

 

Quite a difference, no?

 

Now, I don't believe that speeding is the be all and end all of bad driving, but it is a symptom of selfish, ignorant driving which is, in my opinion, the source of most, if not all, bad driving.

 

*Source

[Cyclone 10]

I had occaision to drop off a parcel at Wharncliffe Side and on my journey from Hillsborough I couldn't help thinking that the speed limits along this route are at least 10 mph too high...

The sign for 50mph is immediately followed by a series of dangerous bends... (in my opinion)..and should be around 40 mph in that area. ( again, in my opinion ).

Does anyone know if my fears can be verified ? Is this a high accident spot ?

 

Have you ever considered deciding for yourself how fast to go around a bend.

It's the recommended way of driving. Don't assume that a speed limit of 50 mph means you can drive the entire route at 50 mph. Use your brain instead.

[beansforyou 10]

At the end of the day all this thread has confirmed is that accidents are caused by bad drivers, at both ends of the spectrum, not by a roads speed limit.

 

It's like anything else in life, you get someone trying to do something they're just not capable of, and your gonna end up with alot of mess to clean up.

 

That doesn't mean that the answer is to hold back those that are good at what they're doing though does it, because that's nonsensical.

 

The answer is to provide a more thorough testing to beging with, to make sure these clowns don't get on the road in the first place (although many of them aren't even licensed).

 

As far as the road concerned goes, you can easily get from the junction at Deepcar right up to Middlewood without having to brake once, when you know how to control your vehicle properly, without speeding or holding up everyone else.