Why don't they focus on dangerous drivers rather fixed speed. People who overtake dangerously, people who drive too close, people constantly changing lanes unnecessarily! It is lazy and a way to make money. Simple.
Should concentrate more on those who don't change lanes. Lane hoggers are some of the worst drivers - totally oblivious to an empty lane beside them. Unfortunately and speaking as a woman driver, a lot of them are women and in particular young women. Lane discipline does not seem to be taught properly these days.
I've mentioned it on this forum many times before but the four lane A2/M2 has some of the worst offenders for this. I could drive on long sections and undertake many people. If you can be undertaken, then YOU are in the wrong lane.
I agree that lane discipline is a problem, but I think there's something more fundamental about the rules of motorway driving that brings about the unintended consequences of having clogged outer lanes. It's a motorway, so almost everyone wants to go at top speed. The logic of that is, that they plan to overtake anyone who isn't doing 70 (sometimes more). If you know that you are going to overtake others, it makes sense to position yourself in the overtaking lane. If it was a few individuals doing this there'd be no problem, but when most do it you end up in a situation where the traffic levels across the lanes are the reverse of what they should be. It's not poor individual choices so much as everyone making the same choice that causes the problem.
Of course this gets compounded by people with the worst lane control; the absolute numbskulls who think that the acceptable solution is for them to overtake on the inside. A better solution would be to scrap the rules that reserve the outer lanes for overtaking and replace them with the more enlightened idea that inner lanes are for short journeys and outer ones for longer distances.
They should just make our motorways Freeways so you could overtake any side. I totally disagree with your last comment, Ive lost count of the amount of arse heads sat in the middle lane or even outside lane that I have had to undertake, if THEY had lane control, people like me who know how to drive/ride can get where they are going very very fast.
I'd have to agree. People sitting in the middle lane effectively turn a 3 lane motorway into a single lane unless you opt to undertake them.
Couldn't agree less. The problem is simple. Drive in the left-hand lane unless overtaking. After overtaking, move back to the left-hand lane. Since 2013, the police have had the power to prosecute lane hoggers. I researched how many prosecutions have occured. As far as I can see the answer is one.
Couldn't agree less. The problem is simple. Drive in the left-hand lane unless overtaking. After overtaking, move back to the left-hand lane. Since 2013, the police have had the power to prosecute lane hoggers. I researched how many prosecutions have occured. As far as I can see the answer is one.
The number of police actually patrolling the roads now is tiny, hence the bad, but not "gatsoable" driving that you see
Why don't they focus on dangerous drivers rather fixed speed. People who overtake dangerously, people who drive too close, people constantly changing lanes unnecessarily! It is lazy and a way to make money. Simple.
Should concentrate more on those who don't change lanes. Lane hoggers are some of the worst drivers - totally oblivious to an empty lane beside them. Unfortunately and speaking as a woman driver, a lot of them are women and in particular young women. Lane discipline does not seem to be taught properly these days.
I've mentioned it on this forum many times before but the four lane A2/M2 has some of the worst offenders for this. I could drive on long sections and undertake many people. If you can be undertaken, then YOU are in the wrong lane.
I agree that lane discipline is a problem, but I think there's something more fundamental about the rules of motorway driving that brings about the unintended consequences of having clogged outer lanes. It's a motorway, so almost everyone wants to go at top speed. The logic of that is, that they plan to overtake anyone who isn't doing 70 (sometimes more). If you know that you are going to overtake others, it makes sense to position yourself in the overtaking lane. If it was a few individuals doing this there'd be no problem, but when most do it you end up in a situation where the traffic levels across the lanes are the reverse of what they should be. It's not poor individual choices so much as everyone making the same choice that causes the problem.
Of course this gets compounded by people with the worst lane control; the absolute numbskulls who think that the acceptable solution is for them to overtake on the inside. A better solution would be to scrap the rules that reserve the outer lanes for overtaking and replace them with the more enlightened idea that inner lanes are for short journeys and outer ones for longer distances.
They should just make our motorways Freeways so you could overtake any side. I totally disagree with your last comment, Ive lost count of the amount of arse heads sat in the middle lane or even outside lane that I have had to undertake, if THEY had lane control, people like me who know how to drive/ride can get where they are going very very fast.
I am with you Greenie, if the only option is to undertake do it. I normally give them a "look" as I go by and then pull right across to the inside lane to show them it is safe to drive on the left.
My old mum just received her first speeding ticket, 86 years young and driving for over half a century, good job it was a camera she would have kicked shit out of any one who stopped her.
Lewisham have followed Southwark by setting a speed limit of 20MPH across the borough. I don't know if speed cameras have been re-calibrated yet but I expect the Council to have a windfall when they are. NO ONE drives on main roads at 20MPH.
Lewisham have followed Southwark by setting a speed limit of 20MPH across the borough. I don't know if speed cameras have been re-calibrated yet but I expect the Council to have a windfall when they are. NO ONE drives on main roads at 20MPH.
Well that's me avoiding Lewisham. If this carries on I might as well get a horse and cart! Is this a TFL "every journey matters" influence? Special funding from the London mayor? Bound to be the only reason...
Westcombe hill is a road I use every day and has a 20 mile an hour limit on it, I'd say is was a main road but it ideally shouldn't be.
Loads of coaches into central London barrel down it trying to avoid a portion of the blackwall tunnel approach.
It's near a school and a lot of pedestrians cross the road to get to westcombe park station and the London bus routes.
One of the few main roads I do travel at 20 mph on but mostly I agree the 20mph limit is better suited to residential.
I agree residential back roads are suited to a 20MPH limit. But for those who know the Catford area, Southend lane and Perry Hill are both 20 MPH limits. There are signs up indicating speed cameras will be installed shortly.
Because they don't want you driving at over 50mph.
But then you need to question why that is the case, given that it's a 3-lane, dual carriageway with excellent visibility and no residential properties, side roads etc.
Because they don't want you driving at over 50mph.
But then you need to question why that is the case, given that it's a 3-lane, dual carriageway with excellent visibility and no residential properties, side roads etc.
Oh yeah that's complete nonsense. Never understood why it takes so long for the national limits to apply.
The biggest danger currently on the roads are mobile phone users and inadequate men in high powered cars who weave in and out of heavy traffic at high speed. A bit of courtesy for others and most accidents would be avoided. I've managed 15 years without a speeding fine having previously racked up 9 points.
Lewisham have followed Southwark by setting a speed limit of 20MPH across the borough. I don't know if speed cameras have been re-calibrated yet but I expect the Council to have a windfall when they are. NO ONE drives on main roads at 20MPH.
Loads of Lewisham back roads have allegedly been 20 for ages. I live on one. I'd be in favour of speed cameras on it because when its clear people drive at 40. Sadly, there's enough people who don't care at all about anyone not in a car that they will go ridiculous speeds in residential roads. IMO the 20 limit is to try and get people into the mindset of driving more slowly in residential areas - which TBF is nearly all of Lewisham borough - there's only one short stretch of the A205 which is more than 30 limit. I do agree that it is ridiculous, and in most cases driving round here you are going to be doing either 3-5mph or more than 20.
Because they don't want you driving at over 50mph.
But then you need to question why that is the case, given that it's a 3-lane, dual carriageway with excellent visibility and no residential properties, side roads etc.
Its people like you they have enforced this Rizz, if you think 3 lanes is a duel carrigeway what chance have you got of reading the numbers on your speedo?
The biggest danger currently on the roads are mobile phone users and inadequate men in high powered cars who weave in and out of heavy traffic at high speed. A bit of courtesy for others and most accidents would be avoided. I've managed 15 years without a speeding fine having previously racked up 9 points.
This is not entirely a full picture. Latest figures show that the biggest cause of reported road accidents is "driver/rider failed to look properly" and accounts for a staggering 46% of accidents. Now, undoubtedly that statistic includes those fiddling with their mobile and it is indeed worrying that the figure has gone up from 42% in 2010. I suspect mobile phone use, either for calls, texts or social media is largely to blame for the increase. Thereafter the situation gets murkier, with undoubtedly some overlap. But "travelling too fast for the conditions" comes in a lowly 10th in the list with 7%. It is also of note that this category includes someone travelling within the speed limit but in adverse weather conditions. So, inadequate men in high powered cars are NOT one of the "biggest dangers" as you put it. In fact a high percentage of the type of driving you complain about is young men (who by the nature of their insurance quotes are) in low-powered cars. The 17-19 age category alone accounting for almost 20% of the careless, reckless or aggressive driving. It is also of note that pedestrians who don't look account for a higher percentage - 9% - than people who travel at excessive speed. Again, I suspect, because their mobile device is of more interest than interacting with their immediate environment. I nearly had an accident yesterday on probably the most benign bit of road you could possible imagine. I was on cruise control at 65mph in the inside lane of the I-75 (Alligator Alley). Somebody travelling a little faster overtook the car behind me and then immediately started to pull back in - despite the fact my car was in the way! If I hadn't noticed this in my rear view mirror and headed for the hard shoulder pronto, I'd have had a crash - I'm sure the other driver was using his cell phone. But it's an example of how keeping your wits about you can save you grief.
Finally, again from the Government's most recent stats, in 1949, there were in excess of 160 road deaths per billion miles travelled. Today there are less than 5. That's some progress.
Because they don't want you driving at over 50mph.
But then you need to question why that is the case, given that it's a 3-lane, dual carriageway with excellent visibility and no residential properties, side roads etc.
Its people like you they have enforced this Rizz, if you think 3 lanes is a duel carrigeway what chance have you got of reading the numbers on your speedo?
The number of lanes in each direction is irrelevant. A dual carriageway is a road where opposing traffic flows are separated by a physical barrier. There are single lane dual carriageways and there are multi-lane single carriageways. On none of them is it wise to hold a duel.
BTW. My recollection is that the 50 mph limit on the A2 came about because of a serious accident when someone (not paying attention) ploughed into the back of a car queuing for one of the local traffic junctions (Bexley, I think). At the same time the nearside lanes became, intermittently, "local traffic" lanes where queuing is still frequent. Of course, all the reduced speed limit does is restrict the damage that someone not paying attention might do when they hit another car. Safe speed doesn't come into it. The primary cause of accidents on this road are excess traffic volumes and the poor design of the road itself, its slip roads and where the traffic goes after they get off the slips, that is, nowhere.
What makes it clear that the cameras are only for revenue gathering purposes, is the situation coast-bound after the Bexley slip. The aforementioned safety management issue disappears but the speed limit stays at 50, not returning to 70mph until you enter Kent. But the stretch of road has precisely the same characteristics. So, the reason can only be to harvest money from motorists.
Comments
Since 2013, the police have had the power to prosecute lane hoggers.
I researched how many prosecutions have occured. As far as I can see the answer is one.
Loads of coaches into central London barrel down it trying to avoid a portion of the blackwall tunnel approach.
It's near a school and a lot of pedestrians cross the road to get to westcombe park station and the London bus routes.
One of the few main roads I do travel at 20 mph on but mostly I agree the 20mph limit is better suited to residential.
I've managed 15 years without a speeding fine having previously racked up 9 points.
IMO the 20 limit is to try and get people into the mindset of driving more slowly in residential areas - which TBF is nearly all of Lewisham borough - there's only one short stretch of the A205 which is more than 30 limit. I do agree that it is ridiculous, and in most cases driving round here you are going to be doing either 3-5mph or more than 20.
Thereafter the situation gets murkier, with undoubtedly some overlap. But "travelling too fast for the conditions" comes in a lowly 10th in the list with 7%. It is also of note that this category includes someone travelling within the speed limit but in adverse weather conditions.
So, inadequate men in high powered cars are NOT one of the "biggest dangers" as you put it. In fact a high percentage of the type of driving you complain about is young men (who by the nature of their insurance quotes are) in low-powered cars. The 17-19 age category alone accounting for almost 20% of the careless, reckless or aggressive driving.
It is also of note that pedestrians who don't look account for a higher percentage - 9% - than people who travel at excessive speed. Again, I suspect, because their mobile device is of more interest than interacting with their immediate environment.
I nearly had an accident yesterday on probably the most benign bit of road you could possible imagine. I was on cruise control at 65mph in the inside lane of the I-75 (Alligator Alley). Somebody travelling a little faster overtook the car behind me and then immediately started to pull back in - despite the fact my car was in the way! If I hadn't noticed this in my rear view mirror and headed for the hard shoulder pronto, I'd have had a crash - I'm sure the other driver was using his cell phone. But it's an example of how keeping your wits about you can save you grief.
Finally, again from the Government's most recent stats, in 1949, there were in excess of 160 road deaths per billion miles travelled. Today there are less than 5. That's some progress.
If you want the full fat version, it's here. https://gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/467465/rrcgb-2014.pdf But I warn that it's over 400 pages long and includes data on weather, etc, etc.
BTW. My recollection is that the 50 mph limit on the A2 came about because of a serious accident when someone (not paying attention) ploughed into the back of a car queuing for one of the local traffic junctions (Bexley, I think). At the same time the nearside lanes became, intermittently, "local traffic" lanes where queuing is still frequent. Of course, all the reduced speed limit does is restrict the damage that someone not paying attention might do when they hit another car. Safe speed doesn't come into it. The primary cause of accidents on this road are excess traffic volumes and the poor design of the road itself, its slip roads and where the traffic goes after they get off the slips, that is, nowhere.
What makes it clear that the cameras are only for revenue gathering purposes, is the situation coast-bound after the Bexley slip. The aforementioned safety management issue disappears but the speed limit stays at 50, not returning to 70mph until you enter Kent. But the stretch of road has precisely the same characteristics. So, the reason can only be to harvest money from motorists.