Average speed in road-works.

[Acker79]

First. The speed limits on motorways are ludicrous. 70 mph - it's a joke. The problem the people who take a pious view is that the limit is not enforced. No-one will ever get fined for driving on a motorway up to 80 mph, possibly 85. I even go past police at 80 mph with no problem.

Make the speed limit a sensible limit and then enforce it if you want respect for the limit, but leave the crass comments such as "If you speed you shouldn't be on the road".

Secondly, I recognise the need for speed limits through road-works. In a rush hour, having slower traffic actually speeeds the flow, less stop-start. However, if I'm driving to Debyshire on a Sun eve through the roadworks and there's 3 lanes with virtually no cars on the road and no workmen about, does it really matter if I go though at 70. Well, really. If your only argument is "Well, it's the law", then don't bother, as the people who made the laws are the same ones that made the rules for parliamentary expenses, so they don't exactly command respect from yours truely.

Actually the laws are made by people who base them on the work done by experts, people who factor in the physics of speeding cars, human reaction times, probability of accidents, and so on.

With unattended works around there's no way of guaranteeing the road conditions are safe for a higher speed, what may look fine may indeed not be, both because of decieving looks and because of deteriorating light.

With empty roads there is an increased chance of bleeding to death if you have an accident and there's no one around to call for an ambulance etc while you're lying there bleeding out.

 

[Skint Gull]

Actually the laws are made by people who base them on the work done by experts, people who factor in the physics of speeding cars, human reaction times, probability of accidents, and so on.

With regards to motorways and dual carriageways that is simply bollocks. I will guarantee you (although nobody in a position of power would admit it now) the only reason the national speed limits haven't been increased since the advances in car technology is the green activists would go mental at the extra Co2 if we all went 10 mph faster.



And there'd probably be more accidents cos the old codgers would still do 40mph, but that would never be confirmed either.

Just as a matter of interest, does anyone think another reason that old people are not forced to have medicals and test to continue to drive is to do with the economy? This is more relevant now with the crisis with the worlds car makers but can you imagine what would happen to the prices of new and used cars if the old people who were proven to be incapable of driving actually had to give their motor up? We'd probably have a million more cars on the road that people to drive them, car makers and sellers would all be bankrupt and thousands of jobs would be lost

 

[strings]

I believe you have to have a medical every 5 years after your 70th Birthday, if you wish to continue driving.

 

[The Oldman]

I believe you have to have a medical every 5 years after your 70th Birthday, if you wish to continue driving.

Not sure that is so. You ony have to declare you are fit to drive. If you tell DVLC that you have certain medical conditions then they may ask your doctor or get you to attend a medical. Funnily enough most just declare they have no problems and are fit to drive!!

As someone in my late sixties I have no objection to being required to be retested as to my driving skills and medicaly examined but I doubt if that will happen. Just think of the costs involved and the sheer number of examiners that would have to be recruited to cope. In any case do not statistics show that oldies are comparatively safe drivers?

 

[beorhthelm]

In any case do not statistics show that oldies are comparatively safe drivers?

statistics might be skewed by numbers of older people who actually drive. but insurance goes up when you get old doesnt it?

 

[Tom Bombadil]

Not sure that is so. You ony have to declare you are fit to drive. If you tell DVLC that you have certain medical conditions then they may ask your doctor or get you to attend a medical. Funnily enough most just declare they have no problems and are fit to drive!!

?

Always used to be the case that all the driver had to do was declare themselves fit to drive. I used to live next door to a bloke in his nineties who still drove despite the fact he could hardly turn the steering wheel.
He only stopped driving when he reversed out of his drive and straight across the road into a tree because he couldn't react quickly enough to move his foot from the accelerator to the brake.

 

[BeardyChops]

He only stopped driving when he reversed out of his drive and straight across the road into a tree because he couldn't react quickly enough to move his foot from the accelerator to the brake.

Well trees can jump out of nowhere pretty darn fast you know

 

[Acker79]

Just as a matter of interest, does anyone think another reason that old people are not forced to have medicals and test to continue to drive is to do with the economy? This is more relevant now with the crisis with the worlds car makers but can you imagine what would happen to the prices of new and used cars if the old people who were proven to be incapable of driving actually had to give their motor up? We'd probably have a million more cars on the road that people to drive them, car makers and sellers would all be bankrupt and thousands of jobs would be lost

I don't know if it is the economy, or about votes.

Earlier this year some group put forward the idea that drivers have regular physicals, and if they don't have good eye sight etc they lose their licence. This was picked up by people like jon gaunt and his replacement on talksport as ageism, a covert effort to get old people off the road.

Since most of the younger generation are disillusioned with politics, it's the older generation that can, in theory, decide elections. So you don't want to upset them.

Seemed to me like a sensible law. It wasn't if you were old you lose your licence, it was if you couldn't see properly, had slow reflexes etc.

 

[dougdeep]

statistics might be skewed by numbers of older people who actually drive. but insurance goes up when you get old doesnt it?

No.

 

[Driver8]

I got a £60 Fine and 3 points for averaging 56 in a 50 by "average" set of cameras on the M6 a couple of years ago so not too much margin for error. I missed the first camera - which was well before the actual roadworks - so although I did 50 through the roadworks it was too late.

 

[ATFC Seagull]

I got done for 83 on an empty motorway so I'd be careful using 85 as a guide. You'll be given 10% of the limit to allow for inaccurate speedos but after that it will depend on the camera and / or officer manning the gun.

Same here (possibly 84).

I had some of the same arguments as above, but ultimately, its well above the limit, I knew I was doing it, they caught me. End of.

 

[Skint Gull]

No.

Wrong old man, i used to work for an insurance company and can assure you that insurance gets more expensive once you reach the age where you're liable to piss yourself without warning, usually around about 75. This is mostly because many insurers stop quoting at this age so although the one's who quote don't go up so much, the cheap ones will all steer clear