Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'A3/S3/Sportback (8P Chassis)' started by cdb2, Jan 22, 2007.
Well if it means another half hour in bed, then it's no contest!
bowfer, mainly the justification for ignoring motorway limits was aimed at you, not the nicked bit.
AndyMac, I assure you I'm not a middle lane hog, far from it, and it annoys me intensely when I see it, especially when I'm in the nearside lane doing 70mph, usually without a lorry up my backside, and I have a choice between undertaking or having to go round them to mix it with the '90mph is ok muppets' in the overtaking lane...
70mph on a motorway a hazard? LOL.
IF it is, and I don't for a minute think it is, it's probably because of all the jet pilot wannabees doing 85 to 90.
Hang on a minute, if we slowed them down, then maybe the motorway would be a bit safer for everybody rather than just those who want to save half an hour off their journey, and think that speed limits only apply to everybody else.
Maybe speed cameras on motorways are there for just that reason....
I don't really think I'll take any motorway driving tips from you if that's ok, 9 points says it all really doesn't it?
I don't intend,or set out,to take 4.5 hours to Manchester.
it just turns out that way.
I set off,I get into the flow of traffic,I don't refuel and I don't take breaks.
Before I know it,I'm there.
I certainly don't want to give anyone the impression that I'm some sort of full-beam/fast lane hero.
Not at all.
I regularly get overtaken on the motorway,but I don't feel comfortable above 90-95 mph.
Motorways are already the safest roads out there.
I bet,if you looked at the figures,that most accidents happen at or lower than 70mph too.
I've read every report I find.
They always,always,prove the anti-speed lobby wrong.
I would also argue forcing people to slow down on motorways would actually lead to more people speeding in urban areas,where they can do more harm.
I'd put money on it.
"I don't really think I'll take any motorway driving tips from you if that's ok, 9 points says it all really doesn't it? "
Yep and that comment really confirms how naive you must be to relate points to safe driving. Even insurance companies don't make that mental leap anymore.
70 on the inside lane without a lorry up your arse??? I didn't realise they had motorways in cloud cuckoo land. Where on earth are you driving? I've been on the M3/M27/M40/M6 at 3am and there's lorries on the inside lane.
bowfer, I really don't see a problem with that, I'm all for an 80mph limit on motorways, and you're journey time seems to fit with that.
I think we've all agreed that driving standards are woeful, and that they are the root cause of a lot of accidents, but you can't cherry pick what rules of the road you obey, and which you don't.
If everybody went a bit slower, and instead of being up each others backsides all the time, on and off the brakes (and I'm not saying anybody who's commented on this debate does that by the way, but just take a look out of the window!), and actually left space to the car in front, then all the evidence points to average journey times reducing, and accidents, and the impacts of those accidents lessening too.
I don't see how removing speed cameras from motorways, or anywhere else for that matter, will possibly make the situation better than it is now.
"If everybody went a bit slower, and instead of being up each others backsides all the time" That's exactly why everyone is up each others arses. If everyone went a bit faster then there would be more spac on the roads. Durrrrr!
I suppose we'll just have to beg to differ.
We'll give you a toot on the way past !
But lorries don't do 70mph AndyMac.
Most insurance companies don't penalise you for 3 points, correct, but 9?
Look, I break the speed limit ocassionally, who doesn't? I'm not some kind of Peter Perfect!
Use the defence of it was 'too busy' or 'everybody else was doing that speed' or 'somebody was up my backside' as defence in court, and see how far you get.
I'm sorry, but it sounds childish and pathetic to me. YOU are in control of your vehicle, nobody else. At the end of the day AndyMac, go as fast as you like, but don't gripe when you lose your licence one day.
There ARE accidents on Motorways, show me your research that says there aren't?
Also, show me the research that says speeding wasn't a contributory factor in ANY motorway crashes, including the ones that don't kill anybody, but cause hours of hold ups each day?
The only thing keeping lorries out of lane 3 on the motorway I'm sure, is the fact that legally they can't be there!
My god is this is like explaining something to my 3 year old.
If you do 70 on the inside lane, you will come across a lorry, you then either slow down or overtake. If you're only doing 70, then you may find it hard to overtake immediately, so you slow down, you then end up doing 60 trying to move into the middle lane of a busy motorway, you will then get a lorry trying to overtake both you and the other lorry doing precisely 1mph more than you etc etc.
Read the TRRL research
HGV's are responsible for pretty much all major accidents on motorways.
But what was the root cause of those accidents? Read the report fully and more carefully. How many of the accidents were caused by cars moving into their safety space or joining the motorway at 80mph only to find there are lorries on it doing 60mph?
Of course, your logic suggests that because in your mind lorries are responsible for pretty much all major accidents on motorway, that justifies you driving at whatever speed you like?
I find that I can overtake a lorry travelling at 60mph quite safely thankyou, and without breaking the speed limit, I do it everyday... With a modicum of forward planning, you should never find yourself in the scenario you describe.
No and no.
You've already agreed that the motorway speed limit should be raised, so what's your point exactly? When did I ever say I'll drive at any speed I like?
I've already stated that I drive at 85mph max on the motorway.
9 points on my licence has had no effect on my insurance premium thankyou, what does that tell you? I'm an accident waiting to happen? Or just an experienced driver who does a lot of mileage?
Forward planning? What are you like?
Joining a motorway at 80mph? I don't think so, joining at 40mph would be more accurate if you're talking hazardous.
My point about lorries is that they present a far greater hazard to all motorists even if they stick to their speed limit, than a car breaking the speed limit. The stopping distance for a loaded HGV doing 60mph is worse than an RS4 doing 180mph.
Personally i would say 95% of the time it is peoples lack of attention that causes accidents on a motorway...
I.E queue of slowing traffic ahead, driver does not notice they have slowed down, wham in the rear.
Pulling onto a motorway car in blind spot, pulls out into the side of it, same for changing lanes.
The visibility is that good on A roads and motorways speed is not really a factor for CAUSING accidents, yes it plays a part in the severity of it like injuries.
Diffrerent story when we talk about minor B roads etc when a inexperienced driver goes round a sharp bend too fast and crashes, fair enough caused by speed!
You cant really go off a corner on a motorway can you unless you are travelling at a very stupid speed?
Just checked the stats with our researchers where I work.
Lorries = 51 accidents per hundred million vehicle kilometres
Cars = 94 accidents per hundred million vehicle kilometetres
Anyway, I admit we've strayed from the point here, and I didn't mean to make this personal, so sorry if that's how I've come across.
Most folks who've contributed have agreed that bad driving causes accidents, and some of that bad driving is driving too fast.
I agree that most people on the motorways seem to do nearer 80 rather than 70, and most of the time that seems fine and dandy. But, we all see people travelling at nearer 100, and bullying people out of the way by tailgating, and undertaking if you dare stay where you are.
My point, if there is one, is that whether the limit is 70 or 80, there is very little to be gained by exceeding it by a great deal, except stress, higher fuel consumption, antagonising your fellow road users and ultimately the risk of losing your licence. Where has all the courtesy gone in driving today? And, I suppose, the fact that even 10mph slower could mean the difference between life and death if you got involved in an accident, either your own or somebody elses.
I respect that you have a different view about some of that, but speed enforcement is, I think, a legitimate and necessary thing given the situation we find ourselves in roads wise, as people seem incapable of driving responsibly, or even sticking to the most sensible speed limits, especially in built up areas, without some kind of penalty system hanging over them.
By way of example, walking down my village main street, which is an A road, was a terrifying experience before speed cameras were put up, and the difference is amazing. Not that there were many fatalities before mind, just that now everybody feels safer.
"Lorries = 51 accidents per hundred million vehicle kilometres
Cars = 94 accidents per hundred million vehicle kilometetres"
Lorries= 51 serious accidents, fatalities/serious injury motorway closed
Cars = 94 accidents, mostly minor, no one seriously hurt apart from the ones involving lorries, speed only a mitigating factor in less than 7 of them.
And BTW why are you lusting after an S3?
My experience of driving on autobahns in Germany is, because drivers are allowed to drive fast and do drive fast, most of the other traffic that does not want to drive so fast does not sit for miles on end in the outside lane.
German drivers seem to be much better at lane discipline that UK drivers. A lot of UK drivers seem to think that the inside lane is just for lorries and hence sit in the middle lane whatever speed they are doing. Because of this any driver who wants to go a bit faster uses the outside lane which then becomes busier than even the inside lane.
Again German drivers will not tollerate slower moving cars who stay in the outside lane. They tend to close up on them very quicly and expect them to move over, which because it happens so often, nearly all cars do. There is none of this, I driving at the speed limit so you must stay behind me. There is no speed limit in most cases. Driving at those sort of speed, often in excess of 100mph requires good concentration and because of their general love of cars as a nation and there much better driver education and testing, which includes motorway driving, they are able to give.
Although autobahn driving can be quite stressful in some ways it is also very enjoyable and if you do see instances of bad driving it is very often by a car with non German number plates.
Why? Why not?
Edit: I can still enjoy the car within the limits can't I?!
Er doubtful, and what a waste.
motorways should be in the driving test, and it should be rammed into your head that you keep to the left if you arent moving quicker than the vehicles there - and you move over if somebody comes up behind you in the outside lane.
Also that you shouldnt join the feckin motorway at 40mph!!! amount of idiots who do this bemuses me.
I'm 22 and im already gettin right annoyed at the amount of twats on the motorway, god knows how bitter ill be if these people dont learn how to use the road in the next few years
All this stuff about the driving test shoudl be harder is a bit of fthe mark too - the driving test is hard, but only because they concentrate on ridiculous manouvres that hardly anybody will perform, and will fail a person for doing something like nudging a kerb when parking. Who cares!
They should spend more time driving on real roads, and should be tested on doing so, not reversing round a corner or doing a 3 point turn without touching some kerbs.
Emergency stop - fair play, the rest is ********
"Most folks who've contributed have agreed that bad driving causes accidents, and some of that bad driving is driving too fast"
Absolutely, 7% to be exact. The other 93% is hardly worth mentioning.
AndyMac, every car on this forum is a waste then....?
Ever heard of track days?
I can't check your figure of 7% of accidents being caused by excessive speed, but even if it's correct, that's still 245 dead people a year. I've never said speeding is the ONLY cause of accidents, but just because it's a minority cause doesn't make it right does it? I've already said that other measures need to be put in place, and I even said what some of them were.
Anyway, I'm tired of this now, and I know your mind probably can't be changed.
But, a lot of the arguments you've put forward advocating that motorway speeding is ok, even if as you say you only ever do a max of 85, sound ridiculous if you put them in the context of drink driving or other anti-social driving activities. There similar arguments that people used to use when arguing against drink drive limits.
Would you say, for instance, that if the drink drive limit was 50mg, you would drink no more than 55mg, as any more would be stupid, even though 50mg might be considered the safe and legal level for most people?
I'd guess you wouldn't.
Would you say that you only tailgate people a bit, so it's alright?
Again, I'd guess you wouldn't.
But that's what you say in the speeding argument, because you think it's ok. You already know my views on that...
As you've put a few scenarios to me today, let me put one to you.
You're travelling on the motorway, suddenly all hell breaks loose in front of you as cars scatter everywhere. You manage to bring your car to a frantic stop, but you hit some debris that took out a tyre and you're now stationary, and drivers side on to the following traffic. No side impact above 55mph, even with airbags, is considered survivable unless you've got a minimum of 50cm of crumple protection between you and the car that's about to hit you. You've got less than 30cm...
Now, a car travelling at 70mph behind you reacts to the situation, and braking hard its maybe travelling at only 30 to 45mph (minimum 12.5 metres a second) when it hits you. The car doing 85mph may be doing a bit more, say 40 to 55mph (minimum 16.6 metres a second).
Lets hope it's me following you if that ever happens, and not you.
You would be very lucky to survive any side impact above 30mph.
You would be very lucky to be able to react if all hell breaks loose right infront.
You would be very lucky to survive any accident doing 45-50mph + on the motorway.
It all comes down to luck, no matter what speed you're doing. You could be travelling at 120mph, the **** hits the fan infront of you and somehow you get through it all unscathed, its all down to luck.
Statistics in general tell you sweet nothing about anything
I agree luck plays a large part Rodenal, but the point is speed does come into it somewhere, and the survivability figures get worse exponentially the higher the speeds. It's not really statistics.
More people would survive that scenario at 50, than they would 70, than they would 85.
But, I've said more than I ever intended too on this topic, and I'm going to end up going round in circles, so I'm going to respectfully retreat now, before I go mad!!
Thanks all for the debate.
To put motorway speeding into the context of drink driving is totally ridiculous and you know it, are you working for the governments PR agency or something?
Try adding into your scenario the fact that I didn't get caught up in the accident you describe because I was speeding so it happened 10 miles behind me - it proves nothing!
Also add in the fact that I got hit by a speeder so was killed outright, rather than left in a crushed vehicle for 90 minutes totally conscious before I died.
Even you seem to have forgotton what we're arguing about. My only point was nothing to do with the rights and wrongs of speeding. It is the way it is now enforced that I disagree with. Being stopped by plod and given a stiff talking to, scared to death and then let off with a warning is by far and away more effective than getting a NIP through the post about an offence you weren't even aware you committed. It's reducing speeding to the level of a parking ticket (which I'm sure you've also never had in your life). It is devaluing the importance of road safety and has no public support as everyone is convinced it's just a money making scheme. So justified accident black spots are now lumped in with all the unjustified camera sites and no one takes any of it seriously. If you can't see that then there's really no point continuing as the speed kills propaganda has obviously already fried your brain. Either that or all those 40k miles per year obeying the speed limit religiously (which is impossible) has numbed you into a coma.
Received the Notice Of Intended Prosecution this morning, which was nice.
Offence: Excess Speed - 30mph
Clocked at 38mph whilst going past the idiot who pulled out in front of me.
Have to return within 28 days to confirm it was me. Then presumably they'll say what the penalty is (presumably 3 pts and £60 from what you guys say).
Q1) How long do you have at that point to send your licence off and how long does it take to add the points?
2) Are the points valid from the day of the offence or the day they are added?
Only ask as car will be going in to the dealer soon and don't want to be without my licence when they need it to give me a courtesey car.
The points get added to the paper part of your licence,so you'll still have the credit card/photo licence in your possession.
Unless the courtesy car people insist on seeing the paper part too,but they've never asked me for that.
Sometimes,I think flashing them my blockbuster membership card would keep them happy.
I never been asked for more than the plastic licence card either.
You're paper part is actually the most important part, i used to be a supervisor fo ra hire car firm and i'd have went through my staff if they didnt at least check it, should really be photocopied.
Dont worry about sending it away tho, just take some id and ask them to do a DVLA check on you
I only have a pink paper licence unfortunately!
Can anyone shed any light on 1 and 2 above?
You have 28 day to respond to the NIP, then you will have much the same to send your licence back, so you could drag it out a bit. A lot will depend on the turn around time from the NIP to the penalty notice, but because the NIP was quick expect a quick turn around. I would bank on the licence being away for about 28 days.
So alot depends on when you need that hire car, as to how you handle the situation.
Service is due late Feb so think I'll drag out returning the NIP for 3 week so I'm not without the licence.
You'll also have to upgrade & pay for a new photo licence as they won't return the old style paper licence.
More ways for the system to make money then LOL!
I noticed they don't even send a reply paid envelope to return the NIP!
that is funny
Just another thought, if you do need to send your licence off the week before your dealer service, you could always pop in early explain the situation, they only take a photo copy, so there is no time and date on it ;-)
I miss the old licences.
In my younger days,when I used to get pulled over on my bike all the time,it used to be fun reminding officers that they weren't allowed to take licences out of their clear holders without asking first.
Used to wind them up something rotten !
Did you ever have one of the even older little red book licences where if you got an endosrsement they used to use a rubber stamp in one of the blank pages. I've still got mine with my provisional licence dated December 1966 and my first full car licence 7 April 1967. It includes my first speeding fine of £7 in October 1971.
I only turned 40 on Saturday,so steady on !
Didn't pass my test until June 1984.
I must admit I cannot remember when the new 'Green' type licences came into use - obviously after June 1984.