[cite]Posted By: ME14addick[/cite]Addick Addict you don't have the right to decide how fast everyone else drives and you are the sort that enrages others. If you have overtaken someone you should pull in and if someone wants to drive faster than the speed limit that is their decision. not yours.
I'm sorry but if I'm driving at the legal speed limit and if I choose to drive in the "fast" lane and if that then stop others from potentially causing an accident then that is my decision.
And it is not yours or any one else's right to cause an accident by driving too fast becasue speed limits are there for a very good reason.
Or have you never heard of the saying "speed kills"? And pile ups are never casued by people driving too fast are they?
Selfrighteous p""t are two words that come readily to mind.
I'd rather be a selfrighteous p""t than a killer because, sadly, there are individuals who simply cannot abide by speed limits. A clear road and they'll do 120, thick fog and the limit is 40 and they'll do 70. But the accident will never be their fault will it?
And for the record I actually stay in the first lane if the road is clear. I will, however, not move over if the traffic is solid and I'm already doing the maximum speed limit just to let some tosser go by because he or she thinks they have a God given right to overtake and that their need to get from A to B is more important than mine.
People who flash people to get them to move out their way are just plain rude. When we all leave a crowded Valley on foot and are trying to get back to our cars, would any of us dream of tapping the person in front of us on the shoulder and telling them to move out of our way, just because we want to walk faster than they do? Don't think so.
I'm convinced that traffic congestion is caused by people who drive too fast. They're the ones who are constantly slamming their brakes on because the cars in front can't (or sometimes won't, I admit) move out of their way. Even though they can see that the car in front is not moving as fast as they are, they typically don't bother to ease off the accelerator but wait till they're right up behind and then brake. In busy periods this sends a ripple down the line of cars behind and eventually everybody has to slow right down and sometimes even stop.
Speed limits are there not just for safety, but to help to INCREASE the average speed of all traffic (particularly the variable speed limits we see on motorways). It's the people that think these don't apply to them that spoil it for everyone else.
Admittedly there are people who 'hog' the outside two lanes of the motorway, but most of these people are doing overtaking of their own, and have simply moved across very early and safely at a reasonable speed in order to do so. Some overtaking takes place at a speed of only a few mph faster than the vehicles who are being overtaken. Anyone coming up fast won't see this.
In America (so I'm told) they are taught that one of the biggest hazzards is changing lanes. What we call the 'fast' lane is the lane for cars who are perhaps heading on to the next state, the middle lane(s) are for people heading onto the next city and what we call the 'slow' lane is for people who are taking the shortest journeys. Sounds better to me.
Sometimes Harry the only way to get pig headed lane hoggers to move over is to flash. I would only ever flash my lights when there is plenty of room for them to move over, but they sometimes just won't move over.
I cannot see how Addick Addict can think hogging a lane can prevent accidents, but speeding causes it. If the CONDITIONS do not make it unsafe to overtake higher than the speed limit, I cannot see how the speed alone can cause an accident. However hogging a lane can cause immense irritation to others -at the very least you get a build up of traffic behind you and the braking can cause accidents or at the very worst, they might overtake on the left which can cause an accident. If you just move over and let someone go it does not hurt you and stops the person who wants to overtake from getting frustrated.
How does higher speed cause congestion? Surely we've all been driving behind the driver who won't go above 40mph on a national speed limit road and a massive queue builds up behind them. Usually they don't look in the mirror to see the queue forming behind them as they are in their own little world. I also gave the example of the 50mph section of the A2 as compared oith the national speed limit section. When you reach the national speed limit section, the traffic moves much faster and more freely and less congested.
Most accidents are not caused by speed, but bad driving - not the same thing. Most people believe that the cameras are there to make money only - not for road safety. I can give you a very good example of the so called safety camera partnerships being very economical with the truth.
A little while ago the Medway and Kent Safety Camera Partnership (KMSCP) ran a campaign on Invicta Radio, the main theme of which was 'Street Lights mean 30'. This of course should be qualified with the statement ' unless otherwise marked'. I contacted KMSCP to complain that what they were saying was wrong and should not be broadcast unless they add the qualification statement. Their spokesman told me that the radio slot was not long enough to add the statement 'unless otherwise marked'. I pointed out that what they were saying was not true true and they therefore should not be broadcasting it. Their spokesman told me that they considered that 'it was a justified' message'.
If KMSCP think that it is okay to broadcast a statement which isn't true, how can we believe what other 'information' they care to publish?
In reply to an earlier poster who talks of double standards when I think it okay to speed but not to lane hog. It is never acceptable to lane hog as it affects others but going a bit faster than the speed limit when CONDITIONS are safe does not affect anyone.
ME14, to answer your question (as best I can) as to why speed increases congestion:
Higher speed causes congestion during busy times on motorways because it encourages braking, which slows down traffic. When you're already going fast, the only way is slower and to go slower you (often) need to brake.
On regular roads, higher speeds increase congestion again because of the braking, but also because speeding increases the amount of time spent stationary. The faster that cars zoom up to the traffic lights/car in front/junction etc, the longer time they have to spend stationary. When traffic starts to move again there is a time delay as all the cars in front start to move. If the 1st car in the queue waits one second then the 2nd car must wait 2 seconds and so on.
In london the average speed is something ridiculous like 12mph, yet who would admit to ever driving at this speed? The average speed is this slow, because of the amount of time that cars spend not moving at all. Also, faster moving cars ensure drivers must wait longer at junctions to pull out. More time spent stationary = lower average speed.
Hope that makes sense.
I agree with your point about the radio broadcast - what's the point of public information if it's inaccurate, but as you say in this case it appears that the radio station itself had its own reasons for not including the extra qualification. Media distorting information to suit its own purpose is another topic entirely
I don't think it was the radio station's decision to broadcast the shortened message - more that KMSCP bought a slot that wasn't long enough to broadcast the full statement and obviously thought that the shortened message had more impact even if it were not true!
My own experience of variable speed limits is that they don't make any difference! They were recently introduced on the M20 in the Maidstone area but have done nothing to reduce the congestion at peak times. On the M25, people still speed up between cameras and then brake as they approach them, which is surely counterproductive.
Comments
I'd rather be a selfrighteous p""t than a killer because, sadly, there are individuals who simply cannot abide by speed limits. A clear road and they'll do 120, thick fog and the limit is 40 and they'll do 70. But the accident will never be their fault will it?
And for the record I actually stay in the first lane if the road is clear. I will, however, not move over if the traffic is solid and I'm already doing the maximum speed limit just to let some tosser go by because he or she thinks they have a God given right to overtake and that their need to get from A to B is more important than mine.
I'm convinced that traffic congestion is caused by people who drive too fast. They're the ones who are constantly slamming their brakes on because the cars in front can't (or sometimes won't, I admit) move out of their way. Even though they can see that the car in front is not moving as fast as they are, they typically don't bother to ease off the accelerator but wait till they're right up behind and then brake. In busy periods this sends a ripple down the line of cars behind and eventually everybody has to slow right down and sometimes even stop.
Speed limits are there not just for safety, but to help to INCREASE the average speed of all traffic (particularly the variable speed limits we see on motorways). It's the people that think these don't apply to them that spoil it for everyone else.
Admittedly there are people who 'hog' the outside two lanes of the motorway, but most of these people are doing overtaking of their own, and have simply moved across very early and safely at a reasonable speed in order to do so. Some overtaking takes place at a speed of only a few mph faster than the vehicles who are being overtaken. Anyone coming up fast won't see this.
In America (so I'm told) they are taught that one of the biggest hazzards is changing lanes. What we call the 'fast' lane is the lane for cars who are perhaps heading on to the next state, the middle lane(s) are for people heading onto the next city and what we call the 'slow' lane is for people who are taking the shortest journeys. Sounds better to me.
;o)
I cannot see how Addick Addict can think hogging a lane can prevent accidents, but speeding causes it. If the CONDITIONS do not make it unsafe to overtake higher than the speed limit, I cannot see how the speed alone can cause an accident. However hogging a lane can cause immense irritation to others -at the very least you get a build up of traffic behind you and the braking can cause accidents or at the very worst, they might overtake on the left which can cause an accident. If you just move over and let someone go it does not hurt you and stops the person who wants to overtake from getting frustrated.
How does higher speed cause congestion? Surely we've all been driving behind the driver who won't go above 40mph on a national speed limit road and a massive queue builds up behind them. Usually they don't look in the mirror to see the queue forming behind them as they are in their own little world. I also gave the example of the 50mph section of the A2 as compared oith the national speed limit section. When you reach the national speed limit section, the traffic moves much faster and more freely and less congested.
Most accidents are not caused by speed, but bad driving - not the same thing. Most people believe that the cameras are there to make money only - not for road safety. I can give you a very good example of the so called safety camera partnerships being very economical with the truth.
A little while ago the Medway and Kent Safety Camera Partnership (KMSCP) ran a campaign on Invicta Radio, the main theme of which was 'Street Lights mean 30'. This of course should be qualified with the statement ' unless otherwise marked'. I contacted KMSCP to complain that what they were saying was wrong and should not be broadcast unless they add the qualification statement. Their spokesman told me that the radio slot was not long enough to add the statement 'unless otherwise marked'. I pointed out that what they were saying was not true true and they therefore should not be broadcasting it. Their spokesman told me that they considered that 'it was a justified' message'.
If KMSCP think that it is okay to broadcast a statement which isn't true, how can we believe what other 'information' they care to publish?
In reply to an earlier poster who talks of double standards when I think it okay to speed but not to lane hog. It is never acceptable to lane hog as it affects others but going a bit faster than the speed limit when CONDITIONS are safe does not affect anyone.
Higher speed causes congestion during busy times on motorways because it encourages braking, which slows down traffic. When you're already going fast, the only way is slower and to go slower you (often) need to brake.
On regular roads, higher speeds increase congestion again because of the braking, but also because speeding increases the amount of time spent stationary. The faster that cars zoom up to the traffic lights/car in front/junction etc, the longer time they have to spend stationary. When traffic starts to move again there is a time delay as all the cars in front start to move. If the 1st car in the queue waits one second then the 2nd car must wait 2 seconds and so on.
In london the average speed is something ridiculous like 12mph, yet who would admit to ever driving at this speed? The average speed is this slow, because of the amount of time that cars spend not moving at all. Also, faster moving cars ensure drivers must wait longer at junctions to pull out. More time spent stationary = lower average speed.
Hope that makes sense.
I agree with your point about the radio broadcast - what's the point of public information if it's inaccurate, but as you say in this case it appears that the radio station itself had its own reasons for not including the extra qualification. Media distorting information to suit its own purpose is another topic entirely
I don't think it was the radio station's decision to broadcast the shortened message - more that KMSCP bought a slot that wasn't long enough to broadcast the full statement and obviously thought that the shortened message had more impact even if it were not true!
My own experience of variable speed limits is that they don't make any difference! They were recently introduced on the M20 in the Maidstone area but have done nothing to reduce the congestion at peak times. On the M25, people still speed up between cameras and then brake as they approach them, which is surely counterproductive.