Where will it all end..........

[TonyHSD]

Indeed, smart motorways are great only if they have hard shoulder that can be used as running lane when needed, otherwise these roads are “smart killers”. 👍

[Rhymes with Paris]

Some very interesting points made here.

In general, I agree that removal of autonomous decisions from drivers is not a good thing, but I do also see the point of stopping the truly dangerous drivers somehow if possible.

A couple of examples of speed related nonsense that spring to mind are a single carriageway road (narrow) near here that is national limit 60 out of a small village continuing past a residential and holiday park with many children and older people crossing the road to the open grassed area opposite .

This area is very busy in summer with people picnicking and relaxing dog walking etc along the river Trent.

It is only safe at 10 or 15 mph at most .

The second is part of the A46 bypass here that has a speed camera a short distance before a roundabout , good Idea some would say.

Unfortunately many drivers are unaware of the speed limit on dual carriageways and brake very heavily from 80 or 90 mph to 60 on seeing the camera , many near misses and a few hits too happen here.

So the poor as in not very good drivers are far more concerned about getting caught than any consideration of safe driving.

 

 

[Puglet]

The other added problem with part of 'our' stretch of smart motorway is part of it is unlit, always has been, gawd knows why, so they done all that work and didn't even put lights on the central reservation to improve safety, madness. In the dark I never use the 'new' lane, as said, it all depends how good the monitoring is. Our stretch wasn't even cheap cos think about 10 or so bridges had to be replaced, was impressive engineering as they kept the motorway open, but they spent too much on our bit to change their minds. Probably why our bit is all lane running, not sure why because it not that busy, but need to justify the cost. The irony is with changing work patterns is the demand still there. 

[ColinB]

I agree on the speed limit detection not being good enough at the moment, mine picks up a 20mph limit on a 30mph road as a regular occurrence. If it did lock to that speed it would upset all the cars following who wouldn't understand why I was going so slow.

[Cyker]

1 hour ago, Rhymes with Paris said:

In general, I agree that removal of autonomous decisions from drivers is not a good thing, but I do also see the point of stopping the truly dangerous drivers somehow if possible.

This is really the crux of the problem - Such dangerous drivers should be re-educated, re-tested and, if they continue to do it, just be perma banned outright. The problem is there is basically no backlash for driving like an idiot unless you are extremely unlucky; You're far more likely to get punished for having a wheel in a box junction or parking in the wrong place than you are for speeding or driving recklessly.

Driving is a privilege, not a right, and considering the harm someone can do with a car, the authorities need to just flat out remove the really dangerous drivers and keep them off the roads, while allowing good drivers leeway to exercise the common sense and experience that they were trained for.

This is not something you can fix with new technology or new legislation - What the authorities just don't seem to comprehend is that the kind of people that drive like utter ****wits are not law abiding - They don't care how many new laws or technological restraints are put up; They will ignore or bypass them as they've always done, while the rest of us who are law-abiding suffer yet more controls and restrictions.

It's e.g. why I'm not keen on this mobile phone law - We already have laws to deal with dangerous driving, but they are not enforced,  and neither will this new law, so all we're really doing is making the life of the law-abiding harder while reinforcing law-breakers belief that they can ignore laws. There is no point making tighter and tighter laws if they and existing laws aren't enforced in the first place - It just means more of us will inadvertently become criminals due to technicalities, because they never expect laws to be interpreted differently to how they're written.

The standard of driving in the UK has become noticeably worse over the past decade, and this is coming from me! I'm definitely not the epitome of good driving, yet 90% of the time I'm probably the best driver in a sight! They need to weed out the worst offenders and not let them back on the roads, but they aren't. I don't even mean the sort you get at car meets that like to rev their engines up or light up their exhaust - Most of them are fairly well behaved on public roads, maybe a bit naughty, but nothing too bad, but there are always a handful that just should never have been given a driving licence.

They also need to do something to make it harder for unlicensed and banned drivers from getting access to cars - Maybe make dealers have to check for a valid driving licence before selling someone a car or something. It's shocking how many people are banned but just continue driving, albeit with no insurance, tax or MOT.

I really like driving, but I don't want to have to share the roads with people that just flagrantly ignore the rules of the road.

 

1 hour ago, Rhymes with Paris said:

This area is very busy in summer with people picnicking and relaxing dog walking etc along the river Trent.

It is only safe at 10 or 15 mph at most .

The second is part of the A46 bypass here that has a speed camera a short distance before a roundabout , good Idea some would say.

Unfortunately many drivers are unaware of the speed limit on dual carriageways and brake very heavily from 80 or 90 mph to 60 on seeing the camera , many near misses and a few hits too happen here.

So the poor as in not very good drivers are far more concerned about getting caught than any consideration of safe driving.

Yeah this is a good point too, and also reinforced what I was saying about speed changes - It sounds like that road needs to be redesigned to make it slower.

The problem is a lot of roads were designed for a certain speed, and most drivers derive a sense of what a safe speed is from that design. However, when you then lower the speed limit, that doesn't change the fact that the road feels designed for the higher speed, and most drivers will instinctively want to go at the speed it was designed for.

That's why I was saying setting that zone to 20 I was talking about is just inappropriate; If you want to slow cars down, change the road, make it bendier and narrower - Widen the pavement, add dedicated parking bays, add islands! We know this works - There are roads that used to be 30's that are now scary to drive down above 20, because such modifications were made to them, and *everyone* drives down those at 20. Don't just stick a 20-zone on a 4-lane wide road and expect people to go at 20 when it used to be a 30 - That is a big ask psychologically, when there is all that space and the road is so clear and visible, esp. when everyone knows from previous experience it is perfectly safe to drive at 30 because road was 30 for umpteen years prior, and the road is exactly the same and unchanged.

The root problem with all these schemes is they're trying to do them on the cheap and without proper planning or thought, then wonder why it's worse. I get that it costs money, but as they saying goes Do it right, or don't do it at all.

 

[Rav Rob]

I already planned for this, I have a GPS signal jammer to stop the car getting speed limits from its location, then I have taken a photo of an empty road and photoshopped onto it a road sign indicating the limit is 100mph. I will mount this on the windscreen in front of the car camera. Hence fooling it into allowing me unlimited speed at all times.

Seriously this is the thin end of the wedge, there are also EU requirements for built in connectivity and tracking, our RAV's are already compliant with their emergency call systems. Its only a matter of time that this gets further integrated into giving authorities the power to track us all continually and stop a car by remote control, this could be a good thing for combatting theft, it works well on Teslas already. But what then follows is per mile road pricing and if you can't afford the fees your car gets disabled or mass curfews activated during pandemics. Further loss of privacy and freedom.

[Cyker]

It might be easier to just not buy one of those cars than going to all that palava  

Heck, you might be able to just keep your car and EV-convert it - Hopefully by then they will have sussed a better way to store electricity that doesn't need a barge of lithium cells that still only give pants range!

Per-mile pricing is likely coming, unless they actually do start levying tax on public EV chargers (Don't see how they can do it to a house 'tho). However, I don't think they'll track people with GPS as that'd be horrifically expensive and will open them up to all sorts of privacy and crime-related lawsuits - More likely they'll just record your MOT mileages and charge accordingly.

I've been thinking I'm not so opposed to taxing cars like that if they abolish the VED and fuel tax, but that would likely make petrol cars cheaper to run than EV's!  

[ernieb]

Full EV’s will cost more that petrol to drive based on some of the numbers some of the charging sites are costing.

[Cyker]

Yea, my Mk4 is already cheaper to run than a lot of EVs on public charging - The price hikes are ridiculous, and the uptake hasn't even hit tipping point yet!

The optimal use of an EV is if you can charge from home and/or work, esp. if you have solar panels, and the EV has enough range to get you to your destination and back without having to stop. Travel is just ludicrously cheap if you can fulfil those requirements and it makes a lot of sense.

If you have to use public charging, the costs have gone up to the point it's about the same as the most efficient diesels and hybrids. I can't believe how quickly the prices have gone up - Averaging 35p/kW, which is quite a lot as EV's have been getting less and less efficient (Earlier ones were at 4-5 miles/kW, which is good, but the new generation of land barges are now more like 2-2.5, which is just rubbish). The most expensive chargers I know of want 70p/kW, which is daylight robbery!

 

[duncerduncs]

Just to calm some fears, cars will need V2X technology for this to work as the road will have to 'tell' the car the speed limit well in advance. GPS alone has limitations on parallel roads. 

Road signs are only for passive systems, like RSA in our cars - if the Government want to take advantage of this they need to spend the money to have geofencing on all main roads...

[Yugguy1970]

Interesting, I'll have to have a google on V2X etc.

I don't trust the EU or the UK beaurocracy to be that intelligent though.

And I can see a horrific future where you are driving past a shop or a fast food place and a message comes on your screen  "Hungry?  HAVE A BURGER NOW!!! TURN RIGHT NOW!!!!"

[TonyHSD]

Here we go, I can see it coming but it might be closer than we all think. https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/cars/1544002/banning-private-car-ownership-petrol-diesel-proposals

now about the topic. Last night on M25 in area without speed cameras three cars were racing each other at speeds minimum of 200km/h 120+mph on almost empty motorway but again there were few cars and few lorries in all lanes and that racers really made a dangerous situation with possibility of potentially deadly accident ., this is what should be stopped of happening these days. If you go 28 -30mph in area of 20mph not a big deal but if you drive 120+mph  where 70mph is max allowed then you and your car become a deadly weapon. Same scenes often seen on North circular road in between north and east London areas, lovely places to be within the finest of mankind on this planet. Over there most if not all lorry drivers drive 60-65mph and the speed limit is 50mph for all vehicles. 

[Yugguy1970]

Typical London-centric thinking.

The rest of the country doesn't actually have an Underground station 2 minutes away.

[Lawnmowerman]

It is rather a big deal if you are a child and are hit by a vehicle at 30mph rather than 20mph.

[FROSTYBALLS]

22 hours ago, TonyHSD said:

If you go 28-30mph in area of 20mph not a big deal

The following makes for interesting reading, and this type of information is also highlighted in speed awareness courses should one need to attend one:

https://www.brake.org.uk/get-involved/take-action/mybrake/knowledge-centre/speed/speed-and-injury

[TonyHSD]

Ok, perhaps wrongly expressed my thoughts, sorry for that,  I meant not as big deal as driving 120 mph in 70mph motorways or 50mph A roads as per my example, that was my point. You are all correct otherwise, 20 and 30 are different speed of course and consequences will be different if accident happens. 👍

[Lawnmowerman]

Sorry to pick you up wrong Tony - was just surprised (not always easy to get your point across without confusion) 👍

[Stopeter44]

57 minutes ago, TonyHSD said:

You are all correct otherwise, 20 and 30 are different speed of course and consequences will be different if accident happens

Energy is proportional to the square of the speed, momentum is proportional to speed. Now, I have forgotten so much about physics, but to stop a car at 30 mph, compared to going 20 mph, more than twice as much energy. I think the damage done at 30mph would be considerably more than at 20 mph. Or have I forgotten too much ?

[Cyker]

I don't know exact numbers but I do recall the chances of being killed or seriously injured by a 20mph collision is much much lower than in a 30mph collision. One thing they don't take into account tho' is that pedestrians are much more likely to chance crossing in front of a car at 20mph than 30mph, so although it reduces the damage done, there is some evidence it increases the chance of it happening.

I had that today - young lady, zebra crossing maybe 10-15 meters further up, saw me coming, and I could see she was trying to work out if she could run across in time to save having to walk further up to the crossing - In that time I'm obviously still closing, and mind made up she suddenly dashed across the road in front of me well short of space. Because this is so common place here, luckily my psychic Suicidal London Pedestrian Warning powers alerted me well in advance and I was already braking as her foot left the pavement (Got there before the auto-brake too! Ha!). Before it was a 20 zone, most people would walk down to the zebra crossing and wait for cars to stop.

 

[TonyHSD]

1 hour ago, Lawnmowerman said:

Sorry to pick you up wrong Tony - was just surprised (not always easy to get your point across without confusion) 👍

My fault perhaps,  bear in mind my poor English, I am a foreigner and I had never been to school in the UK., but spending some time here in the forum helps me learn thing or two 🙂👌

[TonyHSD]

1 hour ago, Cyker said:

I don't know exact numbers but I do recall the chances of being killed or seriously injured by a 20mph collision is much much lower than in a 30mph collision. One thing they don't take into account tho' is that pedestrians are much more likely to chance crossing in front of a car at 20mph than 30mph, so although it reduces the damage done, there is some evidence it increases the chance of it happening.

I had that today - young lady, zebra crossing maybe 10-15 meters further up, saw me coming, and I could see she was trying to work out if she could run across in time to save having to walk further up to the crossing - In that time I'm obviously still closing, and mind made up she suddenly dashed across the road in front of me well short of space. Because this is so common place here, luckily my psychic Suicidal London Pedestrian Warning powers alerted me well in advance and I was already braking as her foot left the pavement (Got there before the auto-brake too! Ha!). Before it was a 20 zone, most people would walk down to the zebra crossing and wait for cars to stop.

 

But now while crossing the streets they are riding an electric scooters with one hand, the other on the phone and wearing a headphones and hoodie and pay attention to the road 0 , what a great combination and real world test for the drivers nearby 🎧 🛴💥

[ColinB]

13 hours ago, Cyker said:

I don't know exact numbers but I do recall the chances of being killed or seriously injured by a 20mph collision is much much lower than in a 30mph collision. One thing they don't take into account tho' is that pedestrians are much more likely to chance crossing in front of a car at 20mph than 30mph, so although it reduces the damage done, there is some evidence it increases the chance of it happening.

I had that today - young lady, zebra crossing maybe 10-15 meters further up, saw me coming, and I could see she was trying to work out if she could run across in time to save having to walk further up to the crossing - In that time I'm obviously still closing, and mind made up she suddenly dashed across the road in front of me well short of space. Because this is so common place here, luckily my psychic Suicidal London Pedestrian Warning powers alerted me well in advance and I was already braking as her foot left the pavement (Got there before the auto-brake too! Ha!). Before it was a 20 zone, most people would walk down to the zebra crossing and wait for cars to stop.

 

I believe that under the new Highway Code a pedestrian has right of way on the crossing even before they actually put foot on there, so we will have to assume that anyone near a crossing is going to cross and always be prepared accordingly? 

Colin

[Cyker]

I believe the recentish updates to the highway code codify that the less vulnerable road user carries the responsibility for protecting more vulnerable road users, and will get the blame in the event of an accident, so pedestrians < bicycles < motorcycles < cars < SUVs/4x4s < vans < trucks/busses/coaches/etc.

TBH this has always been the case but it's just in writing now.

But at a zebra crossing the pedestrian has always had the right of way - That part is definitely not new!

 

[Nick72]

Bit of a problem if you've waited nearly 30 minutes for the ambulance and it is still not showing up, as your daughter is having an anaphylactic episode. At which point, 100mph to the hospital in the Merc. I was there in under 5 minutes, without exaggeration. Dead daughter vs ban and fine. I know which I'll choose every time, every microsecond. Should have done that in the first place. 

This is an idiotic set of regulations. Those who speed excessively for the hell of it are simply going to find a way round it. So all it does is unreasonably constrain the majority. They should throw that crap out.

[FROSTYBALLS]

As regards the Highway Code changes, people did have the opportunity to comment on the proposed changes during the consultation period, which could have affected the results. For example, access to the consultation was posted on the Club.