steve robinson wrote:
> John Williamson wrote:
>
>> Guy King wrote:
>>> The message <68aurtF2s63suU1@mid.individual.net>
>> >from John Williamson contains these
>> words:
>>>> Probably worse, on account of looking for invisible cameras.
>>> Ah - many of us have found a really clever answer to that. Stay
>>> within the limit and everything else happens automatically.
>>>
>> As my total of "Nul points" on a mileage of 60,000(ish) a year
>> testifies. ;-)
>
> It doesnt make you a safer driver , i have lost count of the amount of
> drivers who rigidly stick to the speed limit but fail to use
> indicators or mirrors or even bother to look around thier A posts when
> emerging from a junction ,Try and crush me when i am filtering (a legal
> activity) on my motorcycle or just plain dont see me and turn accross
> the front of me .
>
My boss, his insurance company, my insurance company & several thousand
passengers a year are all convinced I'm a safe driver. I don't get the
finger off more than a couple of bikers a year, either, & they're almost
always ones who've just come from an unexpected direction at well over
the limit, often round a blind bend on my side of the road, heading
towards me.
But you're right, it *is* possible to drive unsafely & be entirely
within the law as far as speed goes. It's also possible to drive safely
while breaking the speed limit, under the right circumstances. It's
(IMHO) a starting point for safety, not a guarantee of it. Sometimes, 20
is too fast even in a 30 limit. Sometimes, speed limits are set not for
safety, but to reduce the amount of traffic noise for the local
residents. Anecdotal evidence backed up by some figures says that even
with the advanced training that police & other emergency service drivers
receive, the faster you drive, the more collisions you have per mile
driven, with an overall reduction after the training. You start running
up against the unchangeable limits set by drivers' reaction times & the
laws of physics.
> Most of the roads with a 70 mph limit or national speed limit used to
> have no speed limits at all , duel carriageways were built for speeds
> in eccess of 70 mph
>
Not to mention a *lot* less traffic than there is now.
When I started driving, I used to do be able to do a particular 65 mile
journey along unimproved B roads, including driving through 2 towns, in
65 minutes, totally legally, including not crossing the centre line to
ease the bends. Even if the law allowed, it probably couldn't be done
now in less than about 80, even on the improved roads on that route, due
to the number of other vehicles you'd meet.
Incidentally, I was told at the time that the banking on most dual
carriageway bends was set so that at 60mph, you could let the steering
wheel go & the car would still follow the line of the road. That seemed
about right when I cautiously tried it once or twice.
--
Tciao for Now!
John.
|
1493408. Re: Where there's muck, there's pigs?
1493472. Re: Where there's muck, there's pigs?
1493677. Re: Where there's muck, there's pigs?
1493680. Re: Where there's muck, there's pigs?
1493714. Re: Where there's muck, there's pigs?
1493718. Re: Where there's muck, there's pigs?
1493736. Re: Where there's muck, there's pigs?
1493740. Re: Where there's muck, there's pigs?
1493745. Re: Where there's muck, there's pigs?
1493748. Re: Where there's muck, there's pigs?
1493793. Re: Where there's muck, there's pigs?
1493797. Re: Where there's muck, there's pigs?
1493861. Re: Where there's muck, there's pigs?
1493959. Re: Where there's muck, there's pigs?
1493964. Re: Where there's muck, there's pigs?
1493965. Re: Where there's muck, there's pigs?
1493967. Re: Where there's muck, there's pigs?
1493974. Re: Where there's muck, there's pigs?
1493980. Re: Where there's muck, there's pigs?
1493983. Re: Where there's muck, there's pigs?
|
|
|