Reconcile this garbage.

[henk4]

I am pretty sure I have heard of people booked for speeds like 56 in a 50 zone.

Yes, but in our system that would mean that they did at least 58 or even 59, as 2 or 3 km are "given" to the "customer" because of the margin of error of the measuring equipment, which in reality might not be so great, but they do this to avoid knitpicking by clever lawyers.

[henk4]

Critics say higher speed limits will lead to more fatal accidents, but McDaniel said the safest roads are ones where all motorists are traveling the same speed.

Studies of drivers on that stretch of highway now show most are traveling about 85 mph, he said.

"The more people we can get to travel a uniform speed, the safer are the conditions that will exist," McDaniel said on Wednesday at the annual Texas Transportation Institute road safety conference in San Antonio.

I think McDaniel is right, but this is only valid in the US or Canada, where I have been overtaken by lorries doing more that 70 mph. (115 kph). How they would do 85 mph is beyond me, but my problem is that on the highways in Europe the lorries are limited to 55. (80 kph officially, but many do 86 or 87). So in theory if everybody has to drive the same speed it would be 60 mph maxium all over Europe, while in the US 70 or 75 could be applied... I think such a proposal would not go down very well in Europe.

[Kitdy]

18 wheelers driving in Ontario are now required to have a 105 km/h limiter affixed to them.

[Ferrer]

I think McDaniel is right, but this is only valid in the US or Canada, where I have been overtaken by lorries doing more that 70 mph. (115 kph). How they would do 85 mph is beyond me, but my problem is that on the highways in Europe the lorries are limited to 55. (80 kph officially, but many do 86 or 87). So in theory if everybody has to drive the same speed it would be 60 mph maxium all over Europe, while in the US 70 or 75 could be applied... I think such a proposal would not go down very well in Europe.

Lorries are actually limited to 100km/h (62mph), aren't they?

In any case, despite the speed limits speeds are much higher in Europe.

For instance there's a study which says that the average speed of the AP-7 motorway in Catalunya is 134km/h (83mph), despite the posted speed limit being 120km/h (75mph).

By the way, here the margin for speed cameras is 10km/h or 10%, which ever is higher. And the urban legend says that in motorway speed cameras do not take a photo of you until you go faster than 140km/h (87mph).

[csl177]

In what country will you hear a motorist saying that they have quality and consistent driver training?

My personal non-scientific experiences driving in North America have shown to me that we may well be the safest and most courteous drivers in the world.

That being said, driver training is still inadequate.

Meant to respond earlier: Germany. NA motorists: generally not bad, but not great... and varied culture plus seriously inadequate driver training is why. Lane discipline is nearly non-existent in North America. From my experience, it is quite good on the Autostrada of Italy and all German highways. Largely the case in France and Portugal too, at least from my brief visits driving there. As to courtesy, while traffic in places like Thailand is frighteningly bad, you'll never hear a horn honk or see a driver cut another driver off. It's bad form, and reflects poorly on one's character.

EDIT: For a taste of how bad US drivers can be, try driving in the Northeast states, especially NY or Mass., almost anywhere in Florida, or Washington DC. Best US drivers statistically are Kansans... most fatalities per passenger miles driven? Montana.

[clutch-monkey]

in thailand and vietnam i noticed they used the horn to say hello, notify others of a gap to let them in, to warn pedestrians etc etc
it's like a reflex. surprsingly easy to drive in once you get over the shock of the sheer volume and madness of traffic!

[csl177]

^^^ Good point, that's true... should have said you'll never hear a horn blasting in anger, just small bleats as you note. Politeness rules.

The craziest place we've ever driven is Turkey. We rented a Honda Helix for a day trip out of Kuşadası... drove to the beach, some ruins, and into the countryside, about 300 kilometers in all. The rental agent warned us to be very careful, saying "you do not have right of way". I had to take evasive action twice, once while passing by a wrecked Lada wagon on a skinny mountain road. The guy had no windshield, the roof was bent into a pup-tent shape as the result of his roll into a ditch outside Nazilli. Three hours earlier that day we had to wait while a military truck pulled the car out and watched it being flopped onto the road. I spotted the huge bandage on his head as he approached, realized it was the same car, and moved onto the shoulder JUST in time. Cab rides in Istanbul were gripping. And the 6AM limo ride to the airport was like The Rendezvous, but a huge black Mercedes instead of a Ferrari streaking through city streets. We made the mistake of expressing security check-in time concerns to the driver.

Henk, IIRC speed limits in France & Portugal were 110KPH and in Italy, something like 130. Are they that much lower in other parts of Europe?

[henk4]

Henk, IIRC speed limits in France & Portugal were 110KPH and in Italy, something like 130. Are they that much lower in other parts of Europe?

France is 130 when not raining, 110 when the Autoroute is wet, and while 130 is being rather kept rather well, the wet 110 is more ignored. Portugal I do not know.

Albert, lorries in Northern Europe are limieted to 80 (officially) but may do about 85-88 in everyday traffic. The UK is 70 mph (115 kph) Belgium 120 Germany unlimited, but with large parts now 130 or even 110. Luxemburg went up to 130 a couple of years ago, as did Danmark. Sweden and Norway are lower, Holland recently went up to 130 on selected roads, but mostly 120 or even 110.

[crisis]

Looks like Miles and crisis got far away from the original issue raised by crisis: minor speed differentials being the basis of a driver safety and ticketing campaign.

Yes, I admit but I cannot let spurious points go un contested.

Scofflaws are who the state should be targeting. Using a broad anti-speed campaign as in parts of Australia (and plenty of US locales do the same thing) doesn't address the REAL issue, but sure looks and sounds good as a public relations tool. It's also clearly a revenue generator, both for the state and insurance companies, as suggested in earlier posts.

Excessive speed differential CAN be a cause of crashes but it is when coupled to inattentiveness, impairment, and/or distraction by other influences that it more likely becomes lethal. No amount of advanced driver training will prevent those scenarios, but sure can make a difference for motorists in proximity to them. Removing repeat offenders from the roads should be a high priority... .

Totally agree.

a license to drive is NOT A RIGHT

Who says?

Interesting bit about Interstate 35 near Austin, which is quite congested. They built SR130 to relieve the traffic and set the limit at 85MPH, because that's what MOST people will drive. Read more here: [B]Critics say higher speed limits will lead to more fatal accidents, but McDaniel said the safest roads are ones where all motorists are traveling the same speed.

Studies of drivers on that stretch of highway now show most are traveling about 85 mph, he said.

"The more people we can get to travel a uniform speed, the safer are the conditions that will exist," McDaniel said on Wednesday at the annual Texas Transportation Institute road safety conference in San Antonio.[/B

I agree in principal as long as the roads support it. I.e. separated oncoming traffic. I am not sure speeds this high are truly ever safe though. For every person who can manage to drive a car this fast and maintain concentration there with be two that cant. In my opinion anyway.

[henk4]

Who says?

me for instance, a driver's licence is almost equivalent with a license to kill, but you don't get the same punishment as you would get for murder or manslaughter.

[MilesR]

Looks like Miles and crisis got far away from the original issue raised by crisis: minor speed differentials being the basis of a driver safety and ticketing campaign.

Yes, somewhat, but I must admit that, like Crisis, I am rather compelled to question or correct beliefs that I believe may be ill-founded or in error.

me for instance, a driver's licence is almost equivalent with a license to kill, but you don't get the same punishment as you would get for murder or manslaughter.

Yes. Indeed, someone else who will say that the license is a privilege, not a right, is your friendly, local driver licensing agency, who will probably say so on the first page of their guide to learner-drivers. Again, like it or not, it was a principle agreed to when accepting your driver's license.

18 wheelers driving in Ontario are now required to have a 105 km/h limiter affixed to them.

In Singapore, lorries and buses are supposed to be mechanically limited to 60km/h. In Malaysia, they will be limited to 60, 70, 80 or 90km/h, depending upon the type of vehicle and the type of road (motorway or other). It makes it easier to join a motorway, as the left lane will be moving slowly enough that it is easy to join. This is a valid concern in a country where, until 2008, cars with about 22kw peak power were still available. That said, although the trucks are slower than the other traffic, they still do not seem to be quite as mechanically limited as the law says. The same is true in Australia, where electronic 100km/h limiters are required for trucks nationally, yet trucks will still overtake cars that are travelling at 110km/h.

Well I am sorry but I have to shoot holes through this.

I remembered incorrectly. It seems that ABS can increase accident severity, as well as rates. This particularly vitriolic and biased report at least gives reference to the source of the data: Killer ABS | The Truth About Cars. This is attributed, at least in part, to complacency. This more recent study still does not find a favourable effect: ScienceDirect.com - Accident Analysis & Prevention - Antilock brakes and the risk of driver injury in a crash: A case–control study. It seems that ABS only starts to reduce risk when combined with ESC, which does benefit safety: http://www.chooseesc.eu/download/studies/esc_uk.pdf. This link has some quite good information.

Personally I'm not opposed to some advanced training being required for getting a license, or at least there being some benefit for people to undertake it. Maybe less time on P plates, or less restriction on the type of vehicles allowed to be driven.

In principle, neither am I, but I am not sure how much it will help. A scheme was tried in the ACT, where provisional license holders were granted additional demerit points, and were allowed to drive without displaying P-plates, if they completed the "Road-Ready Plus" advanced course. I am led to believe that the course was populated literally almost completely by those who were on the verge of losing their licenses, and their concern was solely to retain their licenses when they should have been taken off the road. None of them were there for the safety benefits. I agree with Matra's suggestion of a practical motorcycle course as a requirement, for the same reasons that he gives. In addition, I would add that the lessons are likely to be better learned, as the motorcycle must enhance the awareness of vulnerability, and fear is a better motivator than reason.

Excessive speed differential CAN be a cause of crashes but it is when coupled to inattentiveness, impairment, and/or distraction by other influences that it more likely becomes lethal. No amount of advanced driver training will prevent those scenarios, but sure can make a difference for motorists in proximity to them.

You have stated pretty much exactly what I think. My hope is that the speed fines will be worthwhile, if they motivate people to pay more attention to their speed, and therefore make them more aware of what their car is doing, and what is going on around them.

[crisis]

me for instance, a driver's licence is almost equivalent with a license to kill, but you don't get the same punishment as you would get for murder or manslaughter.

Well you kind of do if you kill someone with dangerous driving to an extent. The reason I don’t is because those who are apparently responsible for handing out these “privileges” can’t be trusted with the job.
Philosophically it is not the function of a government to meter out privileges to the public. Who are they to have this luxury? Government make laws that predominately allow a society to function and prevent, through laws, individuals harming or negatively impacting on others. For example you can’t assault people or steal from them. In the case of driving you can’t drive in a way that they deem dangerous or drive without proper training. I accept all of this. But the ability to move ourselves around the place is a basic human right. How we go about it is determined by the options at our disposal. So if we can buy a car and learn to drive it then I can’t see why it should be considered a privilege for us to drive the car we have paid for on the roads we have indirectly paid for with the license we have apparently earned.
What other activity do we undertake that is treated so?
The reason I believe authorities like to push the line that it is a privilege is so they can make laws and rules with total impunity. So there is never a legitimate come back by the motorist about what is fair or not as we are only driving in any case due to the grace of our benevolent leaders.

[crisis]

I remembered incorrectly. It seems that ABS can increase accident severity, as well as rates. This particularly vitriolic and biased report at least gives reference to the source of the data: Killer ABS | The Truth About Cars. This is attributed, at least in part, to complacency. This more recent study still does not find a favourable effect: ScienceDirect.com - Accident Analysis & Prevention - Antilock brakes and the risk of driver injury in a crash: A case–control study. It seems that ABS only starts to reduce risk when combined with ESC, which does benefit safety: http://www.chooseesc.eu/download/studies/esc_uk.pdf. This link has some quite good information.

Wow. The “killer ABS” article seems so bizarre I don’t know where to start. The other article begins to shed some light. The driving course I did involved bring a car to an emergency stop through witches hats in the wet (in order to make the car skid at slower speeds). Once instructed how to use ABS it was possible to trust the system and the advice to guide oneself through the hazard without touching the witches hats. Initially the exercise is quite daunting as it seems there is no possibility that at the seed you are travelling you can possible just slam the brakes and drive though the obstacle. After a few attempts you understand just how ABS will enable you to avoid obstacles. There were cars there without it who had to actually try to pump or pulse their brakes to achieve a similar effect. It was pretty hopeless and I imagine in a emergency the last thing you would think of would be to brake and un brake effectively in rapid succession while watching the road to avoid the obstacle.
In essence ABS may be of little extra benefit if one has not had the opportunity to test it in an exercise like this. Which is why I would encourage everyone to try it. Once done I have no doubt it may save your life or someone else’s.

[henk4]

Well you kind of do if you kill someone with dangerous driving to an extent. The reason I don’t is because those who are apparently responsible for handing out these “privileges” can’t be trusted with the job.
Philosophically it is not the function of a government to meter out privileges to the public. Who are they to have this luxury? Government make laws that predominately allow a society to function and prevent, through laws, individuals harming or negatively impacting on others. For example you can’t assault people or steal from them. In the case of driving you can’t drive in a way that they deem dangerous or drive without proper training. I accept all of this. But the ability to move ourselves around the place is a basic human right. How we go about it is determined by the options at our disposal. So if we can buy a car and learn to drive it then I can’t see why it should be considered a privilege for us to drive the car we have paid for on the roads we have indirectly paid for with the license we have apparently earned.
What other activity do we undertake that is treated so?
The reason I believe authorities like to push the line that it is a privilege is so they can make laws and rules with total impunity. So there is never a legitimate come back by the motorist about what is fair or not as we are only driving in any case due to the grace of our benevolent leaders.

Perhaps seeing the Government as a third party in stead of a something that represents us, may influence your views? "Us" being the combined population of road users in this case....

The ability to move around the place comes second for me to the obligation that you are not supposed to harm anybody or to put in real physical danger.

[crisis]

The ability to move around the place comes second for me to the obligation that you are not supposed to harm anybody or to put in real physical danger.

For sure. I am not saying there shouldn’t be laws or indeed licences. I just disagree philosophically that an elected group somehow presume to be able to grant “privileges” as though they are some kind of ultra wise nobility that somehow knows better than we do. They don’t demonstrate too much wisdom in most areas. .