Fast driving on public roads

[Cyclone 10]

Do you know the difference between a 95mph impact and one at 100mph?

 

The laws are not dependant on what happens in the event of an impact, its down to the safety of travelling at such a speed. Otherwise we wouldn't see trains or any other form of transport going faster than 70mph.

 

What about B roads and head on collisions? Two cars can easily be going at the speed limit (60mph) and have an actual impact speed of 120mph if they had a head on collision. Compare that to the motorways or A roads where at best, the impact speed is 70mph.

 

Someone posted a mythbusters clip recently, I'd rather run into another vehicle at a closing speed of 120mph than a big solid tree (or bridge support) at 70...

 

---------- Post added 25-02-2016 at 15:18 ----------

 

A point to note - a head on impact with something immovable like a tree is the same as a head on impact with a car going the other way. Hitting a stationary car is far more preferable due to momentum transfer...

 

Not quite true, unless your tree comes with a crumple zone...

 

---------- Post added 25-02-2016 at 15:20 ----------

 

Motorways are safe primarily because its difficult to have a head on collision with anything, and immovable objects like bridge stanchions are protected from impact by barriers. It's these reasons motorways are safe, not because they have fewer accidents.

 

They DO have fewer accidents (per mile travelled) though, because of superior design.

 

You don't have blind corners or bridges, you don't have side roads or driveways, you don't have traffic lights and pedestrians.

One direction of travel, hopefully all at a similar speed, with traffic joining and leaving provided with slip roads to filter in and out.

A design that is far safer than the alternatives that trunk roads employ, where the main flow is broken up by roundabouts and side roads joining with no slip.

[alchemist 35]

Who by your mates?

 

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

 

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

 

 

Nearly a third of motorists have had a 'near miss' caused by someone travelling slowly.

 

 

These drivers create such frustration that six out of ten motorists feel stress rise and about half are tempted to 'undertake'.

 

Stressful: Slow drivers cause six out of ten motorists into temptation to undertake

 

It has led to calls for a crackdown on slow drivers including the setting of minimum limits or even ‘slow speed’ cameras.

 

 

Transport Department figures show 143 accidents a year are caused directly by slow drivers.

 

 

The report from insurer Confused.com coincides with the Government’s deadline today for police and councils to publish prosecution and casualty data on speed cameras to see if they do save lives or just raise cash.

 

 

The report notes: ’In reaction to these slow drivers, almost half (45%) of motorists risk overtaking, thus increasing the chances of an accident.

 

 

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2016721/Slow-drivers-dangerous-roads-cause-crashes.html#ixzz41B1fMpQD

Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

 

So what you are saying is that impatient drivers cause accidents? I would have thought that that was obvious

[Vaati 11]

The bickering and finger pointing can now cease. For future reference if you think someone is a returnee, then please report rather than derail a thread.

Any further continuation is likely to result in people being suspended.

[DT Ralge 10]

How do the safety statistics of the unlimited motorway compare to other roads and to our motorways?

 

That's a big question given the detailed nature of the stats available in both countries.

Comparing Uk and Germany is fraught with "apples and pears" differences.

Germany has four times the length of motorway we have (12000 km).

Their motorway network generates 12-14% of their death toll, our network generates only 5-6%. Can we say, from that, that theirs is relatively safer than ours? Dunno, 'cos they are still killing 3000+ in total on all their roads where our death toll is down to 1775 (in 2014). Germany has a bigger population but not that much bigger.

 

What should be noted is the Uk's figures when analysed per 100,000 population and/or by billion miles travelled puts us at the top of the league table with Holland and Sweden with the Germans and French a good way down the table - which explains, perhaps, why our DfT has been frustratingly ("not invented here") reluctant to adopt "good ideas" from that part of Europe (e.g higher limit in good conditions, lower in poor conditions, speed/space technology enforcing space rather than speed ...). After all, it's running out of space at any speed that hurts, not the speed itself.

Edited February 25, 2016 by DT Ralge

[geared 302]

Who decided 70mph was the number anyway??

What was the reason behind it??

 

IIRC it was introduced in the mid-60's, back then it must have seemed like a fantastically high speed.

 

I remember having an old mini way back when, you daren't go much above 60 in that otherwise it felt like it'd fall to pieces.

[DT Ralge 10]

Who decided 70mph was the number anyway??

What was the reason behind it??

 

IIRC it was introduced in the mid-60's, back then it must have seemed like a fantastically high speed.

 

I remember having an old mini way back when, you daren't go much above 60 in that otherwise it felt like it'd fall to pieces.

 

70-80 is quite normal and easily achieved, even by smaller-engined cars.

In a straight line, these vehicles have stability.

Ever tried braking and steering at speeds above 40 mph?

[ghost rider 10]

yeh that's the problem

 

But I reckon (as a layman, so don't request proof/evidence and all that gubbins) that 100mph in a modern rep mobile with all the safety features is safer than 70mph in a 1970s Cortina

 

On another matter that's 4000 people who are all licenced with registered vehicles. That in itself counters the argument that licencing cyclists and registering bikes will improve things, but that's another thread

 

I actually did over 100 mph in a 1970,s cortina when i was young and foolish on the M1.That would have been about 30 years ago and i am not proud of it now.I also did it in a mk2 escort as well,and a 3 litre capri.The thought of something going wrong never entered my mind when i was young.I am now the one complaining about young drivers driving too fast.

Edited February 25, 2016 by ghost rider

[DT Ralge 10]

I've always wondered that. Tests must have been done since then? Clearly reaction time probably hasn't changed much, but I've never really understood why that was included anyway. Reaction times are so subjective and will change all the time for each individual. When I'm a bit sleepy after a long day at work there is no way my reactions times are as good as they were in the morning, so I should leave more space to the car in front. It could be argued that having any form of arbitrary measurement like speed limits or braking distances actually encourages more accidents as people blindly follow the guidelines whether they are fit for purpose at that time or not.

 

The figures are based on a 0.66 second reaction time.

More recent research (Transport Research Lab) concluded that this figure could reasonably be much closer to 1-second.

 

---------- Post added 25-02-2016 at 20:07 ----------

 

Who decided 70mph was the number anyway??

What was the reason behind it??

 

IIRC it was introduced in the mid-60's, back then it must have seemed like a fantastically high speed.

 

I remember having an old mini way back when, you daren't go much above 60 in that otherwise it felt like it'd fall to pieces.

 

In the mid-sixties, the 70 limit was introduced where the road had been unrestricted I.e. where there had been no limit previously.

[lottiecass 17]

Modern vehicles are fast,my truck will do 100mph and its 14 yrs old,I would think most cars will do 120 mph,but no chance of doing it for any distance without being nicked and I don't risk it now.

[monkey104 10]

If a slow driver pulls out of a junction and hits a vehicle,that isn't down to slow drivng,its down to the slow DRIVER. Slow drivers arnt slow drivers because they are more capable, they are slow drivers because they are often LESS capable.

 

I would have thought that if a vehicle pulls out of a junction and hits another vehicle it has failed to give way, not anticipated the speed and distance of oncoming traffic, or not seen oncoming traffic.

Exiting a junction at speed, Hmmm I will have to look that one up in the Highway Code.

[Cyclone 10]

Who decided 70mph was the number anyway??

What was the reason behind it??

 

IIRC it was introduced in the mid-60's, back then it must have seemed like a fantastically high speed.

 

I remember having an old mini way back when, you daren't go much above 60 in that otherwise it felt like it'd fall to pieces.

 

Not fantastically high, given that the thing that prompted it was a road test of a race prepped car at something like 180mph.

[Eric Arthur 10]

Not fantastically high, given that the thing that prompted it was a road test of a race prepped car at something like 180mph.

 

It's fantastically high when most people are driving cars like an Anglia or Minx though. My first car topped out at 78 mph according to the manufacturer, and it went slower if you wound the windows down! Now I don't have a car that tops out at less than 165 mph.

 

All cars stop a lot sooner these days, and they don't try to leave the road at the slightest corner, which is probably more pertinent. I think we could probably cope with a higher motorway speed limit now. Do they still have those out of date stopping distances on the back of the Highway Code?