mort   10 #193 Posted April 9, 2019 What part of not bickering eluded you ? If this continues the thread will be closed and suspensions issued. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Cyclone   10 #194 Posted April 10, 2019 12 hours ago, ads36 said: Even if you raised all speed limits by 25%, you wouldn't reduce journey times by 25%.  For a start, increasing speed by 25% reduces journey time by 20%, that's how the maths works out.  Then, you have to consider the time spent accelerating/decelerating.  Then you have to consider queues, junctions, waiting, etc. All the that time spent stationary.  We could raise the parkway limit to 3000mph, it would make no difference at all to journey times - because of the queues at either end.  And then there's the speed limits that wouldn't get raised : the 20/30 limits on residential streets.  Care to guess how much we'd *actually* reduce journey times by, if we raised all debatable speed limits by 25%? I'd be surprised if it was even as much as 10%...  Conversely, we could reduce a lot of speed limits without affecting journey times. Bizarrely, speed limits don't really slow us down very much, even if we obey them.  It really depends on the journey doesn't it. Broomhill to Glossop in light traffic is highly dependent on the speed limit, with the physical limitations of cornering and safe speed being more important if the speed limit were abolished (for example). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
ads36   205 #195 Posted April 10, 2019 (edited) yup, 20 miles more-or-less on the nose (between 30 signs)  that's 24 minutes at an average of 50 mph. Let's say we raise the limits to a value that means a 'legal' average of 60 is possible : you'd be doing 70+ on the straight bits. A closing speed of 140mph, on a rural road? yikes.  anyway, that would save 4 minutes, off a journey of 24. or a 17% reduction, not insignificant.  but you'd have to wait till 3am to get the clear run, 17 hours from now.  yes, we could save 4 minutes of a journey over snake pass, but after a 17 hour wait. Or, you could just set off when you need to, accept that it'll take 25-30 minutes, and save yourself 16.5 hours!       Edited April 10, 2019 by ads36 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Cyclone   10 #196 Posted April 10, 2019 38 minutes ago, ads36 said: yup, 20 miles more-or-less on the nose (between 30 signs)  that's 24 minutes at an average of 50 mph. Let's say we raise the limits to a value that means a 'legal' average of 60 is possible : you'd be doing 70+ on the straight bits. A closing speed of 140mph, on a rural road? yikes.  anyway, that would save 4 minutes, off a journey of 24. or a 17% reduction, not insignificant.  but you'd have to wait till 3am to get the clear run, 17 hours from now.  yes, we could save 4 minutes of a journey over snake pass, but after a 17 hour wait. Or, you could just set off when you need to, accept that it'll take 25-30 minutes, and save yourself 16.5 hours!   You set off when you set off. You've just agreed that at quiet times it could be nearly 1/5th quicker. And that's a fairly short journey right. I came home from Manchester airport recently at 0400 in the morning, didn't see a single car after I left Glossop, I don't think I saw very many after leaving the M67 in fact, and the only noticeable traffic was before that.  Closing speed, 100 mph if you have a head-on is pretty severe... But driving at 50/60/70, none of those should mean you start having head on collisions... The bigger danger is surely a sheep on the road! I've experienced that twice I think on the snake, unexpected sheep in road, normally just around a corner. Didn't hit it either time. The closest I've come to an accident on that road was making a right turn just outside Hollow Meadows (heading out of town, turning into a driveway). I indicated in plenty of time, slowed early enough. Just about to turn when someone 4 cars back shot out and overtook... If I'd turned a second earlier, or not seen them (from behind me remember) then they've gone into the driver side door or wing, they were probably doing 60, but too stupid to think about a line of cars might have just slowed to a near stop. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
WiseOwl182   10 #197 Posted April 10, 2019 23 hours ago, redbig said: Not if it's not safer  Whether or not it's safer is open to debate. On some roads it's perfectly safe to increase the speed limit, in my opinion. One example is Bochum Parkway, which has a wide central reservation and relatively long, straight stretch. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
redbig   10 #198 Posted April 12, 2019 On 10/04/2019 at 21:33, WiseOwl182 said: Whether or not it's safer is open to debate. On some roads it's perfectly safe to increase the speed limit, in my opinion. One example is Bochum Parkway, which has a wide central reservation and relatively long, straight stretch. Maybe yes, i was on that road the other day and was passed by plenty doing 60 anyway Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Foot   10 #199 Posted April 12, 2019 4 hours ago, redbig said: Maybe yes, i was on that road the other day and was passed by plenty doing 60 anyway I see plenty of people using their mobile phones while driving every day............doesn't make it right. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Brooker11 Â Â 10 #200 Posted April 12, 2019 8 minutes ago, Foot said: I see plenty of people using their mobile phones while driving every day............doesn't make it right. i would say driving with a phone at your ear or texting etc is far more dangerous than doing 34mph in a 30 zone, one is heavily penalised whilst the other goes virtually unpunished, if safety is the main reasoning for speed cameras etc then this imbalance needs to be addressed. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Foot   10 #201 Posted April 12, 2019 2 minutes ago, Brooker11 said: i would say driving with a phone at your ear or texting etc is far more dangerous than doing 34mph in a 30 zone, one is heavily penalised whilst the other goes virtually unpunished, if safety is the main reasoning for speed cameras etc then this imbalance needs to be addressed. I was quoting a post that referred to drivers doing 60 in a 40 zone, nobody mentioned 34 in a 30. In my opinion the heavily penalised offence isn't penalised heavily enough. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
WiseOwl182 Â Â 10 #202 Posted April 12, 2019 4 hours ago, Foot said: I was quoting a post that referred to drivers doing 60 in a 40 zone, nobody mentioned 34 in a 30. In my opinion the heavily penalised offence isn't penalised heavily enough. Doing 60 in that particular 40 zone is still completely incomparable with, say, texting and driving, in terms of danger. As redbig points out, many people do anyway. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Cyclone   10 #203 Posted April 12, 2019 Texting has to be the most dangerous of all the behaviours being discussed right. Speeding is breaking a rule but no inherently unsafe. A phone conversation distracts and means one hand isn't on the wheel. But then we have conversations in the car all the time, and often drive with a hand not on the wheel. Texting requires you to actually look at your phone for quite extensive (in the context of driving) lengths of time. Time in which you aren't watching where you're going or what is changing around you. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
WiseOwl182   10 #204 Posted April 12, 2019 1 hour ago, Cyclone said: Texting has to be the most dangerous of all the behaviours being discussed right. Speeding is breaking a rule but no inherently unsafe. A phone conversation distracts and means one hand isn't on the wheel. But then we have conversations in the car all the time, and often drive with a hand not on the wheel. Texting requires you to actually look at your phone for quite extensive (in the context of driving) lengths of time. Time in which you aren't watching where you're going or what is changing around you. Entirely agree, unless it's a quick text at a long standing, non-moving traffic jam, which is still illegal of course but not dangerous in any way I can think of. Posting on the forum whilst driving is probably even more dangerous than texting. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...