Stretch of A46 one of the most dangerous in UK

Worcester News: CALL FOR ACTION: The stretch of A46 between Evesham and Beckford has been responsible for the deaths of three people and many injuries since July 2010 CALL FOR ACTION: The stretch of A46 between Evesham and Beckford has been responsible for the deaths of three people and many injuries since July 2010

THERE has been a call for action on a stretch of road labelled one of the most dangerous in the country after three deaths in the last two-and-a-half years.

The leader of Worcestershire County Council Adrian Hardman wants to see safety improvements made on a five-mile section of the A46 Evesham Bypass, between Evesham and Beckford.

In his campaign for action, he has written to the Secretary of State for Transport, Patrick McLoughlin. Since July 2010, two fatal and seven serious accidents have taken place on this part of the A46.

Coun Hardman, who represents the Bredon ward on the county council, said: “I have written to Patrick McLoughlin, asking him to take action. I have asked him to revisit the question of dual carriageway, or improved safety measures on this section.

“I think this must be one of the most dangerous length of roads in the county if not country, since on average we are having five people either killed or seriously injured every year on this five-mile stretch.

“We must act. This road is cutting Beckford in half and worrying all who live along it, or by it.”

Diana Burgess, aged 40, died in the most recent fatal incident on the road after her motorbike was involved in a collision with a car at the entrance to Bell Service Station near Ashton on October 16 last year.

The driver of the black Peugeot 308 car involved in the crash has been charged with death by dangerous driving and will appear at Worcester Magistrates Court on Tuesday, February 19.

In July 2010 two people were killed after a crash on the road near the junction between the A46 Sedgeberrow bypass and Cheltenham Road.

Hayley Nalepa, aged 23, and her passenger, 45-year-old Chris Ball, both from Longlevens, Gloucester, died at the scene. Witness reports said Miss Nalepa’s car appeared to have lost control after overtaking at the same time as a vehicle in the opposite direction.

Tracey Davies, who escaped serious injury following an accident on the A46 between the Twyford roundabout and the B4035 last January says she would support a campaign to make the road safer, calling it a “death trap”.

She said: “It needs to be made no overtaking in one direction all along the A46. “There is far too many accidents and too many people dying. I am not driving any more and I refuse to go on that road. “The A46 is a death trap.”

Comments (71)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

12:33pm Sat 9 Feb 13

CYNIC_AL says...

There's no such thing as a dangerous road, only dangerous drivers...
There's no such thing as a dangerous road, only dangerous drivers... CYNIC_AL

1:35pm Sat 9 Feb 13

Name unknown says...

CYNIC_AL wrote:
There's no such thing as a dangerous road, only dangerous drivers...
Ever seen Ice Road Truckers?
[quote][p][bold]CYNIC_AL[/bold] wrote: There's no such thing as a dangerous road, only dangerous drivers...[/p][/quote]Ever seen Ice Road Truckers? Name unknown

1:40pm Sat 9 Feb 13

broadwas says...

Google: A44 world's most dangerous roads.
Google: A44 world's most dangerous roads. broadwas

1:51pm Sat 9 Feb 13

Jabbadad says...

I quite agree, just look at the picture, the car which could be the cause of an accident is the one overtaking, and obviously a High Powered Jag or such but anyway a fast car.
So since we can't leave it to the drivers, we need to have all cars by law compulsorily fitted with 70 mph speed limiters. And the only exceptions to be the Police, and Vehicles involved in emergency services, Ambulances, Fire engines etc. We had them on Army vehicles in 1956, and although they could be adjusted WOE BE-TIDE YOU if you got caught, it was straight on a charge which could have and did result in severe punishment.
So that's all it needs a speed limiter which is not regulated by those who profess to be more than capable in any circumstances, even the circumstance when they are just about to hit a stationary, or oncoming vehicle , or a pedestrian travelling at less than the speed limit (joke intended).The speed merchants will be able to travel on the HPS2 won't they?
It's CRUNCH TIME for someone.
Come on all the BOY RACERS now to say how much better they are under any circumstances.
I quite agree, just look at the picture, the car which could be the cause of an accident is the one overtaking, and obviously a High Powered Jag or such but anyway a fast car. So since we can't leave it to the drivers, we need to have all cars by law compulsorily fitted with 70 mph speed limiters. And the only exceptions to be the Police, and Vehicles involved in emergency services, Ambulances, Fire engines etc. We had them on Army vehicles in 1956, and although they could be adjusted WOE BE-TIDE YOU if you got caught, it was straight on a charge which could have and did result in severe punishment. So that's all it needs a speed limiter which is not regulated by those who profess to be more than capable in any circumstances, even the circumstance when they are just about to hit a stationary, or oncoming vehicle , or a pedestrian travelling at less than the speed limit (joke intended).The speed merchants will be able to travel on the HPS2 won't they? It's CRUNCH TIME for someone. Come on all the BOY RACERS now to say how much better they are under any circumstances. Jabbadad

4:30pm Sat 9 Feb 13

i-cycle says...

Jabbadad wrote:
I quite agree, just look at the picture, the car which could be the cause of an accident is the one overtaking, and obviously a High Powered Jag or such but anyway a fast car.
So since we can't leave it to the drivers, we need to have all cars by law compulsorily fitted with 70 mph speed limiters. And the only exceptions to be the Police, and Vehicles involved in emergency services, Ambulances, Fire engines etc. We had them on Army vehicles in 1956, and although they could be adjusted WOE BE-TIDE YOU if you got caught, it was straight on a charge which could have and did result in severe punishment.
So that's all it needs a speed limiter which is not regulated by those who profess to be more than capable in any circumstances, even the circumstance when they are just about to hit a stationary, or oncoming vehicle , or a pedestrian travelling at less than the speed limit (joke intended).The speed merchants will be able to travel on the HPS2 won't they?
It's CRUNCH TIME for someone.
Come on all the BOY RACERS now to say how much better they are under any circumstances.
Jabbadad

Doesn't the Director responsible for Highways have a Jag?

Probably just popping over for a chat with the Leader!
[quote][p][bold]Jabbadad[/bold] wrote: I quite agree, just look at the picture, the car which could be the cause of an accident is the one overtaking, and obviously a High Powered Jag or such but anyway a fast car. So since we can't leave it to the drivers, we need to have all cars by law compulsorily fitted with 70 mph speed limiters. And the only exceptions to be the Police, and Vehicles involved in emergency services, Ambulances, Fire engines etc. We had them on Army vehicles in 1956, and although they could be adjusted WOE BE-TIDE YOU if you got caught, it was straight on a charge which could have and did result in severe punishment. So that's all it needs a speed limiter which is not regulated by those who profess to be more than capable in any circumstances, even the circumstance when they are just about to hit a stationary, or oncoming vehicle , or a pedestrian travelling at less than the speed limit (joke intended).The speed merchants will be able to travel on the HPS2 won't they? It's CRUNCH TIME for someone. Come on all the BOY RACERS now to say how much better they are under any circumstances.[/p][/quote]Jabbadad Doesn't the Director responsible for Highways have a Jag? Probably just popping over for a chat with the Leader! i-cycle

5:45pm Sat 9 Feb 13

Biggles says...

Jabbadad ...... just NO mate.
.
I do not pay to drive a powerful car to have it limited, simples !
.
Actually mine is limited, it is limited to 155 mph ...... and I'm still alive, and haven't killed anyone yet.
.
None of the military vehicles I ever drove had speed limiters fitted, but the army do strange things generally lol
Jabbadad ...... just NO mate. . I do not pay to drive a powerful car to have it limited, simples ! . Actually mine is limited, it is limited to 155 mph ...... and I'm still alive, and haven't killed anyone yet. . None of the military vehicles I ever drove had speed limiters fitted, but the army do strange things generally lol Biggles

5:50pm Sat 9 Feb 13

asumabstainer says...

Re the photo;
the overtaking Jag has far more room on this carriageway than is available on most single carriageway roads when vehicles overtake. I remember when the old A44 at Cropthorne suffered more deaths & serious injuries in the 1990s .The County Council then changed the road category to a `B` road & therefore immediately lowered the incident statistics for the A44(now the Old Worcester Rd)
Re the photo; the overtaking Jag has far more room on this carriageway than is available on most single carriageway roads when vehicles overtake. I remember when the old A44 at Cropthorne suffered more deaths & serious injuries in the 1990s .The County Council then changed the road category to a `B` road & therefore immediately lowered the incident statistics for the A44(now the Old Worcester Rd) asumabstainer

6:29pm Sat 9 Feb 13

Landy44 says...

Nanny state gone mad! As the first comment said. Roads don't kill people, bad drivers are to blame.
Nanny state gone mad! As the first comment said. Roads don't kill people, bad drivers are to blame. Landy44

7:42pm Sat 9 Feb 13

i-cycle says...

Yep, and it sounds like Biggles (above) falls into the bad and irresponsible driver category.

Its probably more by luck than judgement he hasn't caused an accident.

203,950 were injured and and 1,901 killed on our roads in 2011.

309,144 killed and 17.6 million were injured between 1951-2006.

Each fatality costs us tax payers £1M on average and this jerk thinks he has the right to put other people's lives at risk just because he can afford a fast car.

The sooner he gets banned the safer the rest of you will be.
Yep, and it sounds like Biggles (above) falls into the bad and irresponsible driver category. Its probably more by luck than judgement he hasn't caused an accident. 203,950 were injured and and 1,901 killed on our roads in 2011. 309,144 killed and 17.6 million were injured between 1951-2006. Each fatality costs us tax payers £1M on average and this jerk thinks he has the right to put other people's lives at risk just because he can afford a fast car. The sooner he gets banned the safer the rest of you will be. i-cycle

7:49pm Sat 9 Feb 13

DarrenM says...

Three deaths in two and a half years ? So what? how many deaths has it had in the last fifty years ? If the answer is zero then I think it could be one of the safest roads! Why don't these clowns ever publish proper statistics instead of nonsense?
Three deaths in two and a half years ? So what? how many deaths has it had in the last fifty years ? If the answer is zero then I think it could be one of the safest roads! Why don't these clowns ever publish proper statistics instead of nonsense? DarrenM

7:51pm Sat 9 Feb 13

DarrenM says...

Oh and 70mph speed limiters, what a genius idea , it means I'll only be able to go just over double the speed limit in a 30mph
Oh and 70mph speed limiters, what a genius idea , it means I'll only be able to go just over double the speed limit in a 30mph DarrenM

8:05pm Sat 9 Feb 13

i-cycle says...

Darren

And how would you feel if it was one of your own family that got injured or killed?

I doubt you'd see it as just another unreliable statistic then eh?

Come on mate, think about your driving responsibly.
Darren And how would you feel if it was one of your own family that got injured or killed? I doubt you'd see it as just another unreliable statistic then eh? Come on mate, think about your driving responsibly. i-cycle

10:35pm Sat 9 Feb 13

Jabbadad says...

Oh Darren please, Speed limit signs say that this is the maximum speed you can do on that particular stretch of road / street. But as a driver you are only allowed to travel at a speed which is safe under all the road conditions otherwise you are driving dangerously.
And Biggles I was a vehicle Mechanic in the REME and it was our job to see the speed limiters were in place on the Vehicles that could exceed the speed limits of course. The Austin Champ an all terrain vehicle was one such case which had a Rolls designed engine which was very fast when de-restricted, but most of the old Bedford QL's or the Old V8 Fords would do about 45 mph max loaded or a bit faster downhill or with the wind.They were designed with pulling power in mind not speed.
And during the 60's I owned a jaguar s'type and in the 70's I owned several Jaguar XJ's that were very fast indeed, and it didn't make me a better driver than my brother in his old Ford.
Speed does kill and bad drivers who drive at the wrong speeds for the conditions are the reason.
And there are thousands who own cars that are a lethal weapon if in the wrong hands, even the hands of advanced drivers hands who make errors in judgments.
Oh Darren please, Speed limit signs say that this is the maximum speed you can do on that particular stretch of road / street. But as a driver you are only allowed to travel at a speed which is safe under all the road conditions otherwise you are driving dangerously. And Biggles I was a vehicle Mechanic in the REME and it was our job to see the speed limiters were in place on the Vehicles that could exceed the speed limits of course. The Austin Champ an all terrain vehicle was one such case which had a Rolls designed engine which was very fast when de-restricted, but most of the old Bedford QL's or the Old V8 Fords would do about 45 mph max loaded or a bit faster downhill or with the wind.They were designed with pulling power in mind not speed. And during the 60's I owned a jaguar s'type and in the 70's I owned several Jaguar XJ's that were very fast indeed, and it didn't make me a better driver than my brother in his old Ford. Speed does kill and bad drivers who drive at the wrong speeds for the conditions are the reason. And there are thousands who own cars that are a lethal weapon if in the wrong hands, even the hands of advanced drivers hands who make errors in judgments. Jabbadad

11:41pm Sat 9 Feb 13

Vox populi says...

What a load of rubbish, for the record mine is limited to 186/187 by revs, great on the track!!

It's an Aston Martin numpties, causing no issues rather than invoke the green eyed monster here and succeeded... Probably waited all day for that photo. There is plenty of room, no issue and if you really want something to whinge about look at the stopping distance the lorry gas left between in and the car in front.
(oh and HGVs of that size are limited to 56mph too....)
What a load of rubbish, for the record mine is limited to 186/187 by revs, great on the track!! It's an Aston Martin numpties, causing no issues rather than invoke the green eyed monster here and succeeded... Probably waited all day for that photo. There is plenty of room, no issue and if you really want something to whinge about look at the stopping distance the lorry gas left between in and the car in front. (oh and HGVs of that size are limited to 56mph too....) Vox populi

12:05am Sun 10 Feb 13

Vox populi says...

*has and it*
*has and it* Vox populi

10:34am Sun 10 Feb 13

Jabbadad says...

There could be national speed limiters on the roads controlled by satellites and responders in the vehicles, and this would allow you exceptional drivers to drive at speeds that are excessive on the race tracks where you would be only endangering your own and similar boy racers lives. There is no room for your thinking under normal driving conditions. And dare I say that I have been driving all sorts / types of vehicles over many years, including Mini Cooper S types to race prepared Jags, and as a rep covered thousands of miles a month, with just one small shunt when I thought the car in front (a lady driver) had pulled away from a road junction into a clear road, and she stopped again, (so my fault) and that cost under £5 to fix the other car.
There could be national speed limiters on the roads controlled by satellites and responders in the vehicles, and this would allow you exceptional drivers to drive at speeds that are excessive on the race tracks where you would be only endangering your own and similar boy racers lives. There is no room for your thinking under normal driving conditions. And dare I say that I have been driving all sorts / types of vehicles over many years, including Mini Cooper S types to race prepared Jags, and as a rep covered thousands of miles a month, with just one small shunt when I thought the car in front (a lady driver) had pulled away from a road junction into a clear road, and she stopped again, (so my fault) and that cost under £5 to fix the other car. Jabbadad

11:28am Sun 10 Feb 13

Vox populi says...

£5 to fix? When was this 1923? Caught out by drum brakes and lack of servo assistance were we?

Get real Jabbadad, a £10k hatchback has 100% more engineering and safety features, dynamics and better handling than any of the cars you mention.

The fact is driving holds risk as does any activity, you cannot remove it unless you stop in bed. Live with it...

Have some faith in your fellow humans ability eh?
£5 to fix? When was this 1923? Caught out by drum brakes and lack of servo assistance were we? Get real Jabbadad, a £10k hatchback has 100% more engineering and safety features, dynamics and better handling than any of the cars you mention. The fact is driving holds risk as does any activity, you cannot remove it unless you stop in bed. Live with it... Have some faith in your fellow humans ability eh? Vox populi

11:38am Sun 10 Feb 13

Vox populi says...

Oh and for all your age and experience you think the biggest hazard in the picture above is the Aston that has plenty of room to pass. You can't tell if it is speeding either....

You ignore the 44 tonne lorry with the potential to do far more damage, that is restricted to 56 mph driving less than a cars length behind another vehicle??? Really?!?!
Oh and for all your age and experience you think the biggest hazard in the picture above is the Aston that has plenty of room to pass. You can't tell if it is speeding either.... You ignore the 44 tonne lorry with the potential to do far more damage, that is restricted to 56 mph driving less than a cars length behind another vehicle??? Really?!?! Vox populi

12:05pm Sun 10 Feb 13

Jabbadad says...

The danger on the roads are you smart Alec's who in the main talk the talk, but don't appear in the sports news headlines as aces. As to cars that are capable of exceptional high speeds (over155 mph) which can only be applied on race tracks or some private roads with the owners permission, I will warrant that having driven a race prepared jag, that even you and Biggles would be experiencing some serious Butt clenching at these high speeds. (I was)
But the main question to you is why have a car capable of 155 mph and more if deregulated when the maximum speed limit is 70 mph? And in the hands of people who think they are invincible?
As to the damages issue, which again you dismiss, (must have been a bystander) it was for a number plate which I gladly replaced and apologised.
As to your reference to the Truck in the picture, yes he is certainly breaking the law of common sense, and I would wager your hero in the Aston is also exceeding the speed limit. But of course that's okay since his car is capable of much higher speeds. And "GET A LIFE" is far better than "TAKE A LIFE" .
The danger on the roads are you smart Alec's who in the main talk the talk, but don't appear in the sports news headlines as aces. As to cars that are capable of exceptional high speeds (over155 mph) which can only be applied on race tracks or some private roads with the owners permission, I will warrant that having driven a race prepared jag, that even you and Biggles would be experiencing some serious Butt clenching at these high speeds. (I was) But the main question to you is why have a car capable of 155 mph and more if deregulated when the maximum speed limit is 70 mph? And in the hands of people who think they are invincible? As to the damages issue, which again you dismiss, (must have been a bystander) it was for a number plate which I gladly replaced and apologised. As to your reference to the Truck in the picture, yes he is certainly breaking the law of common sense, and I would wager your hero in the Aston is also exceeding the speed limit. But of course that's okay since his car is capable of much higher speeds. And "GET A LIFE" is far better than "TAKE A LIFE" . Jabbadad

12:27pm Sun 10 Feb 13

Vox populi says...

No the danger on the road in your opinion is speed. You are blinded by it jabbadad so much that you failed to spot the much greater danger.

If pointing that out makes me a smart Alec then so be it.

Having a faster vehicle can actually make you a better driver - see your butt clenching moments... Try driving a high performance rwd in snow for example....

That's the point Jabbadad, "you wager and judge" with a bee in your bonnet about speed, not common sense because you consider anyone with a fast car a danger...
No the danger on the road in your opinion is speed. You are blinded by it jabbadad so much that you failed to spot the much greater danger. If pointing that out makes me a smart Alec then so be it. Having a faster vehicle can actually make you a better driver - see your butt clenching moments... Try driving a high performance rwd in snow for example.... That's the point Jabbadad, "you wager and judge" with a bee in your bonnet about speed, not common sense because you consider anyone with a fast car a danger... Vox populi

1:11pm Sun 10 Feb 13

i-cycle says...

The facts speak for themselves:

203,950 were injured and and 1,901 killed on our roads in 2011.

309,144 killed and 17.6 million were injured between 1951-2006.

SPEED KILLS

It arrogant people like Vox Populi, Biggles and Darren M who think they have the right to put other people's lives in danger, just so they can show off their affluence by parading around in a fast car.
The facts speak for themselves: 203,950 were injured and and 1,901 killed on our roads in 2011. 309,144 killed and 17.6 million were injured between 1951-2006. SPEED KILLS It arrogant people like Vox Populi, Biggles and Darren M who think they have the right to put other people's lives in danger, just so they can show off their affluence by parading around in a fast car. i-cycle

1:14pm Sun 10 Feb 13

jovialcommonsense says...

I'm happy for someone to drive at 100 mph in the right vehicle at the right time with 100% concentration.
I'm not happy for someone to be driving at 40mph who is concentrating on what they are going to have for tea.
Lack of concentration/awaren
ess is the biggest issue on our roads.
There will always be accidents whatever systems are in place.
I'm happy for someone to drive at 100 mph in the right vehicle at the right time with 100% concentration. I'm not happy for someone to be driving at 40mph who is concentrating on what they are going to have for tea. Lack of concentration/awaren ess is the biggest issue on our roads. There will always be accidents whatever systems are in place. jovialcommonsense

1:30pm Sun 10 Feb 13

Vox populi says...

i-cycle wrote:
The facts speak for themselves:

203,950 were injured and and 1,901 killed on our roads in 2011.

309,144 killed and 17.6 million were injured between 1951-2006.

SPEED KILLS

It arrogant people like Vox Populi, Biggles and Darren M who think they have the right to put other people's lives in danger, just so they can show off their affluence by parading around in a fast car.
Here we go....

Want to relate it to a political party next too?!

Speed does not kill. If so you would die every time you got off an aeroplane...

It's accidents that kill I.e stopping really quickly. Speed is often a contributory factor but one of many factors.

You can be killed below the speed limit, even fall over when walking.

Inappropriate speed can be a contributing factor to an accident and the damage/injury can be proportionately higher if the speed is: physics and energy but often it isn't the root cause.
[quote][p][bold]i-cycle[/bold] wrote: The facts speak for themselves: 203,950 were injured and and 1,901 killed on our roads in 2011. 309,144 killed and 17.6 million were injured between 1951-2006. SPEED KILLS It arrogant people like Vox Populi, Biggles and Darren M who think they have the right to put other people's lives in danger, just so they can show off their affluence by parading around in a fast car.[/p][/quote]Here we go.... Want to relate it to a political party next too?! Speed does not kill. If so you would die every time you got off an aeroplane... It's accidents that kill I.e stopping really quickly. Speed is often a contributory factor but one of many factors. You can be killed below the speed limit, even fall over when walking. Inappropriate speed can be a contributing factor to an accident and the damage/injury can be proportionately higher if the speed is: physics and energy but often it isn't the root cause. Vox populi

1:43pm Sun 10 Feb 13

billybobuk says...

Take the Isle of Man were people are treated like grown ups, there is no national speed limit. There are speed restrictions in built up areas, but after passing a 'National Speed Limit' sign there ceases to be any speed restriction, although people driving in a reckless manner may well be stopped by the police.
So by and large people police themselves and when you look at the stat's (2009) 1 fatal & 99 collisions in total - 75% were in TT fortnight so most were not Manx.
Scrap the limits on most roads and trust people?
Take the Isle of Man were people are treated like grown ups, there is no national speed limit. There are speed restrictions in built up areas, but after passing a 'National Speed Limit' sign there ceases to be any speed restriction, although people driving in a reckless manner may well be stopped by the police. So by and large people police themselves and when you look at the stat's (2009) 1 fatal & 99 collisions in total - 75% were in TT fortnight so most were not Manx. Scrap the limits on most roads and trust people? billybobuk

1:47pm Sun 10 Feb 13

i-cycle says...

Vox not so Populi

Not sure where you get the political party thing from.

I do however see to remember its was you who put all cyclists in a Labour Party box and then admitted you're cyclist yourself.

To put the matter straight I have no political party allegencies.
Vox not so Populi Not sure where you get the political party thing from. I do however see to remember its was you who put all cyclists in a Labour Party box and then admitted you're cyclist yourself. To put the matter straight I have no political party allegencies. i-cycle

2:05pm Sun 10 Feb 13

Vox populi says...

That was my joke if you remember....

Can you please tell me if I have a fast car how I am "parading" around endangering people's lives" please?

Does the fact I have a fast car mean I am endangering people?! No you are judging that I am some kind of boy racer. Interesting as it is a family car...

I guess as you have a knife in your kitchen you are a murderer too...
That was my joke if you remember.... Can you please tell me if I have a fast car how I am "parading" around endangering people's lives" please? Does the fact I have a fast car mean I am endangering people?! No you are judging that I am some kind of boy racer. Interesting as it is a family car... I guess as you have a knife in your kitchen you are a murderer too... Vox populi

2:23pm Sun 10 Feb 13

Jabbadad says...

billybobuk, you have quoted low death stats for the Island, and even then they were riders who we couldn't hope to compare with. However with a Bike the actual impact at anything over 40 mph is bad news. But take your point.

As to Vox having Butt clenching from his powerful car in the snow, I have to remind him that it is paramount of all drivers and pedestrians, to take reasonable care with all road conditions, which also includes volume of traffic be it pedestrians, animals or vehicles. So Vox if you were having a joyous and safe time in the snow within the law you would not be having Butt clenching other than due to someone else's bad behavior, or perhaps you were driving dangerously under the unsafe road conditions?
billybobuk, you have quoted low death stats for the Island, and even then they were riders who we couldn't hope to compare with. However with a Bike the actual impact at anything over 40 mph is bad news. But take your point. As to Vox having Butt clenching from his powerful car in the snow, I have to remind him that it is paramount of all drivers and pedestrians, to take reasonable care with all road conditions, which also includes volume of traffic be it pedestrians, animals or vehicles. So Vox if you were having a joyous and safe time in the snow within the law you would not be having Butt clenching other than due to someone else's bad behavior, or perhaps you were driving dangerously under the unsafe road conditions? Jabbadad

2:24pm Sun 10 Feb 13

Jabbadad says...

billybobuk, you have quoted low death stats for the Island, and even then they were riders who we couldn't hope to compare with. However with a Bike the actual impact at anything over 40 mph is bad news. But take your point.

As to Vox having Butt clenching from his powerful car in the snow, I have to remind him that it is paramount of all drivers and pedestrians, to take reasonable care with all road conditions, which also includes volume of traffic be it pedestrians, animals or vehicles. So Vox if you were having a joyous and safe time in the snow within the law you would not be having Butt clenching other than due to someone else's bad behavior, or perhaps you were driving dangerously under the unsafe road conditions?
billybobuk, you have quoted low death stats for the Island, and even then they were riders who we couldn't hope to compare with. However with a Bike the actual impact at anything over 40 mph is bad news. But take your point. As to Vox having Butt clenching from his powerful car in the snow, I have to remind him that it is paramount of all drivers and pedestrians, to take reasonable care with all road conditions, which also includes volume of traffic be it pedestrians, animals or vehicles. So Vox if you were having a joyous and safe time in the snow within the law you would not be having Butt clenching other than due to someone else's bad behavior, or perhaps you were driving dangerously under the unsafe road conditions? Jabbadad

2:30pm Sun 10 Feb 13

i-cycle says...

Vox Populi

So why attribute your so called joke to imply that all my comments are party political?

Of course having a fast car doesn't mean you drive recklessly. You may well be one of the safest drivers out there.

My main concern is the impression that you AND OTHERS are giving in is its fine to go as fast as you like simply because you have a fast car.

Respectfully I suggest you should be acting more responsibly. People are getting killed on our roads as a result of excess speed.
Vox Populi So why attribute your so called joke to imply that all my comments are party political? Of course having a fast car doesn't mean you drive recklessly. You may well be one of the safest drivers out there. My main concern is the impression that you AND OTHERS are giving in is its fine to go as fast as you like simply because you have a fast car. Respectfully I suggest you should be acting more responsibly. People are getting killed on our roads as a result of excess speed. i-cycle

2:30pm Sun 10 Feb 13

i-cycle says...

Vox Populi

So why attribute your so called joke to imply that all my comments are party political?

Of course having a fast car doesn't mean you drive recklessly. You may well be one of the safest drivers out there.

My main concern is the impression that you AND OTHERS are giving in is its fine to go as fast as you like simply because you have a fast car.

Respectfully I suggest you should be acting more responsibly. People are getting killed on our roads as a result of excess speed.
Vox Populi So why attribute your so called joke to imply that all my comments are party political? Of course having a fast car doesn't mean you drive recklessly. You may well be one of the safest drivers out there. My main concern is the impression that you AND OTHERS are giving in is its fine to go as fast as you like simply because you have a fast car. Respectfully I suggest you should be acting more responsibly. People are getting killed on our roads as a result of excess speed. i-cycle

2:40pm Sun 10 Feb 13

Vox populi says...

To be fair I didn't say I was even on the road ...

The fact remains is that the general view here mainly purported through dislike and jealousy ? Is that anyone who has a high performance vehicle is a danger to others... Maybe we should start on gun ownership next...

You can't judge without facts or knowing people life is a bit more complicated than an opinion.

After all prohibition solves everything doesn't it?!
To be fair I didn't say I was even on the road ... The fact remains is that the general view here mainly purported through dislike and jealousy ? Is that anyone who has a high performance vehicle is a danger to others... Maybe we should start on gun ownership next... You can't judge without facts or knowing people life is a bit more complicated than an opinion. After all prohibition solves everything doesn't it?! Vox populi

2:58pm Sun 10 Feb 13

Vox populi says...

i-cycle wrote:
Vox Populi

So why attribute your so called joke to imply that all my comments are party political?

Of course having a fast car doesn't mean you drive recklessly. You may well be one of the safest drivers out there.

My main concern is the impression that you AND OTHERS are giving in is its fine to go as fast as you like simply because you have a fast car.

Respectfully I suggest you should be acting more responsibly. People are getting killed on our roads as a result of excess speed.
You used the terms affluent and arrogant I believe.

Never once have I said speeding should be encouraged have I?

It is not my job to educate people? Is it yours? I can respect that people have intelligence and can make up their own mInds without trying to back socially acceptable inaccurate badly thought out mantras such as "speed kills"

Poor driving kills, at any speed.
[quote][p][bold]i-cycle[/bold] wrote: Vox Populi So why attribute your so called joke to imply that all my comments are party political? Of course having a fast car doesn't mean you drive recklessly. You may well be one of the safest drivers out there. My main concern is the impression that you AND OTHERS are giving in is its fine to go as fast as you like simply because you have a fast car. Respectfully I suggest you should be acting more responsibly. People are getting killed on our roads as a result of excess speed.[/p][/quote]You used the terms affluent and arrogant I believe. Never once have I said speeding should be encouraged have I? It is not my job to educate people? Is it yours? I can respect that people have intelligence and can make up their own mInds without trying to back socially acceptable inaccurate badly thought out mantras such as "speed kills" Poor driving kills, at any speed. Vox populi

3:37pm Sun 10 Feb 13

i-cycle says...

Vox Populi

You can't judge without facts or knowing people life is a bit more complicated than an opinion.

Your words

So why make such judgement of others as you did in my case?

Like most cyclists, I'm also a driver. The problem we experience of inconsiderate and even downright dangerous driving is noticeably growing.

Ironically there's actually a common interest in getting more to use their bikes and especially on those shorter utility trips around town, as this reduces traffic congestion and frees up more parking spaces.

However the biggest deterrent to getting more people cycling is inconsiderate drivers.

In surveys a massive 75% of drivers agree with having 20mph limits in their own neighbourhoods, because I assume they see the dangers to their own families.

Its unfortunate that some of these drivers don't seem to want to stick to speed limits in other areas. I'm not saying you're one of these, but it doesn't help to be commenting in ways that could encourage others to drive recklessly.

As a cyclist yourself I'm sure you've been on the receiving end.

Perhaps time to pull together and encourage cyclists as well as drivers to respect each others interests more?
Vox Populi You can't judge without facts or knowing people life is a bit more complicated than an opinion. Your words So why make such judgement of others as you did in my case? Like most cyclists, I'm also a driver. The problem we experience of inconsiderate and even downright dangerous driving is noticeably growing. Ironically there's actually a common interest in getting more to use their bikes and especially on those shorter utility trips around town, as this reduces traffic congestion and frees up more parking spaces. However the biggest deterrent to getting more people cycling is inconsiderate drivers. In surveys a massive 75% of drivers agree with having 20mph limits in their own neighbourhoods, because I assume they see the dangers to their own families. Its unfortunate that some of these drivers don't seem to want to stick to speed limits in other areas. I'm not saying you're one of these, but it doesn't help to be commenting in ways that could encourage others to drive recklessly. As a cyclist yourself I'm sure you've been on the receiving end. Perhaps time to pull together and encourage cyclists as well as drivers to respect each others interests more? i-cycle

4:05pm Sun 10 Feb 13

Vox populi says...

I am not encouraging anything other than pointing out speed is not the only factor....

Inconsiderate and poor driving full stop is a problem, and as for the use of mobile phones etc...

If you don't like the perceived message I send out I could perceive your view as "it's ok to do whatever you like as long as you are doing 20mph." after all 1000s of accidents due to lack of concentration at 20mph are better than 1 at 30mph...

I never condone excessive speed, there is a time a place for everything and those who cannot use sensible speed judgement within the confines of the law should be targeted and dealt with not blanket laws and reduced speed limits to cater for any amoebas that might be using our road network. That's the polices job and what I pay my taxes for...
I am not encouraging anything other than pointing out speed is not the only factor.... Inconsiderate and poor driving full stop is a problem, and as for the use of mobile phones etc... If you don't like the perceived message I send out I could perceive your view as "it's ok to do whatever you like as long as you are doing 20mph." after all 1000s of accidents due to lack of concentration at 20mph are better than 1 at 30mph... I never condone excessive speed, there is a time a place for everything and those who cannot use sensible speed judgement within the confines of the law should be targeted and dealt with not blanket laws and reduced speed limits to cater for any amoebas that might be using our road network. That's the polices job and what I pay my taxes for... Vox populi

6:27pm Sun 10 Feb 13

TDH123 says...

Jabbadad wrote:
Oh Darren please, Speed limit signs say that this is the maximum speed you can do on that particular stretch of road / street. But as a driver you are only allowed to travel at a speed which is safe under all the road conditions otherwise you are driving dangerously.
And Biggles I was a vehicle Mechanic in the REME and it was our job to see the speed limiters were in place on the Vehicles that could exceed the speed limits of course. The Austin Champ an all terrain vehicle was one such case which had a Rolls designed engine which was very fast when de-restricted, but most of the old Bedford QL's or the Old V8 Fords would do about 45 mph max loaded or a bit faster downhill or with the wind.They were designed with pulling power in mind not speed.
And during the 60's I owned a jaguar s'type and in the 70's I owned several Jaguar XJ's that were very fast indeed, and it didn't make me a better driver than my brother in his old Ford.
Speed does kill and bad drivers who drive at the wrong speeds for the conditions are the reason.
And there are thousands who own cars that are a lethal weapon if in the wrong hands, even the hands of advanced drivers hands who make errors in judgments.
Limiting a vehicles speed would hinder the ability to accelerate await from a hazard or to quickly and therefore safely overtake a vehicle.
If all vehicles drove at an appropriate speed rather than dawdling along with no consideration for other road users there would be no need to overtake!!
If someone either cannot drive at an appropriate speed or their vehicle is slow - get off the roads!!
[quote][p][bold]Jabbadad[/bold] wrote: Oh Darren please, Speed limit signs say that this is the maximum speed you can do on that particular stretch of road / street. But as a driver you are only allowed to travel at a speed which is safe under all the road conditions otherwise you are driving dangerously. And Biggles I was a vehicle Mechanic in the REME and it was our job to see the speed limiters were in place on the Vehicles that could exceed the speed limits of course. The Austin Champ an all terrain vehicle was one such case which had a Rolls designed engine which was very fast when de-restricted, but most of the old Bedford QL's or the Old V8 Fords would do about 45 mph max loaded or a bit faster downhill or with the wind.They were designed with pulling power in mind not speed. And during the 60's I owned a jaguar s'type and in the 70's I owned several Jaguar XJ's that were very fast indeed, and it didn't make me a better driver than my brother in his old Ford. Speed does kill and bad drivers who drive at the wrong speeds for the conditions are the reason. And there are thousands who own cars that are a lethal weapon if in the wrong hands, even the hands of advanced drivers hands who make errors in judgments.[/p][/quote]Limiting a vehicles speed would hinder the ability to accelerate await from a hazard or to quickly and therefore safely overtake a vehicle. If all vehicles drove at an appropriate speed rather than dawdling along with no consideration for other road users there would be no need to overtake!! If someone either cannot drive at an appropriate speed or their vehicle is slow - get off the roads!! TDH123

7:06pm Sun 10 Feb 13

DarrenM says...

"Darren

And how would you feel if it was one of your own family that got injured or killed?

I doubt you'd see it as just another unreliable statistic then eh?

Come on mate, think about your driving responsibly."


What total nonsense! What if a 747 dropped out the sky and landed on them, what if they were walking past a building site and a piano dropped on them? what if aliens from mars beamed down, what if......


Is your argument that all these kinds of decision should be made emotionally, not logically founded on proven facts then?

(btw debate fans - that's called an appeal to emotion)


"!Oh Darren please, Speed limit signs say that this is the maximum speed you can do on that particular stretch of road / street. But as a driver you are only allowed to travel at a speed which is safe under all the road conditions otherwise you are driving dangerously."


Exactly - sorry I thought you were in favour of speed limiters not against, I must have misread your post, or are you in favour of speed limiters only motorway and dual carrageways which are 70mph but couldn't care less about all the other roads with lower speed limits where the majority of accident occur?
"Darren And how would you feel if it was one of your own family that got injured or killed? I doubt you'd see it as just another unreliable statistic then eh? Come on mate, think about your driving responsibly." What total nonsense! What if a 747 dropped out the sky and landed on them, what if they were walking past a building site and a piano dropped on them? what if aliens from mars beamed down, what if...... Is your argument that all these kinds of decision should be made emotionally, not logically founded on proven facts then? (btw debate fans - that's called an appeal to emotion) "!Oh Darren please, Speed limit signs say that this is the maximum speed you can do on that particular stretch of road / street. But as a driver you are only allowed to travel at a speed which is safe under all the road conditions otherwise you are driving dangerously." Exactly - sorry I thought you were in favour of speed limiters not against, I must have misread your post, or are you in favour of speed limiters only motorway and dual carrageways which are 70mph but couldn't care less about all the other roads with lower speed limits where the majority of accident occur? DarrenM

8:22pm Sun 10 Feb 13

Bonzodog says...

Although bad and inappropriate driving is the root cause, it has to be wondered why certain roads have higher accident rates than others? Is it because their poor design actively encourages bad driving? It seems that a fair number of modern bypasses fall into that category, not just the A46 but as an another example, the A5 approaching Oswestry is of a similar design and, also, a notorious blackspot.
Although bad and inappropriate driving is the root cause, it has to be wondered why certain roads have higher accident rates than others? Is it because their poor design actively encourages bad driving? It seems that a fair number of modern bypasses fall into that category, not just the A46 but as an another example, the A5 approaching Oswestry is of a similar design and, also, a notorious blackspot. Bonzodog

9:13pm Sun 10 Feb 13

Jabbadad says...

Darren you obviously read something quite different than I intended, since of course I support speed limits, by saying that just because it says 70 mph does not mean that you have to do that speed or where it says 30 mph you also do not have to do that speed especially when driving along a crowded road or a side street which is also within the 30 mph limits but where children are running about etc.
So I won't reply any more to your wildly inaccurate interpretations.
Darren you obviously read something quite different than I intended, since of course I support speed limits, by saying that just because it says 70 mph does not mean that you have to do that speed or where it says 30 mph you also do not have to do that speed especially when driving along a crowded road or a side street which is also within the 30 mph limits but where children are running about etc. So I won't reply any more to your wildly inaccurate interpretations. Jabbadad

7:43am Mon 11 Feb 13

MrWXYZ says...

Theres plenty of room for 3 cars, but not 4.
If theres 2 tractors coming towards each other on that bit of road and cars pull out simultaneously to overtake ignoring oncoming traffic because theres 'plenty of room' then bang - wasn't so much room afterall.
The car in the picture is still on the wrong side of the road, and may way well have crept through the lorrys blind spot before reaching where it is now - not ideal if the lorry doesn't expect someone to be overtaking against traffic and adjusts his carriageway position for a hazard.
Theres plenty of room for 3 cars, but not 4. If theres 2 tractors coming towards each other on that bit of road and cars pull out simultaneously to overtake ignoring oncoming traffic because theres 'plenty of room' then bang - wasn't so much room afterall. The car in the picture is still on the wrong side of the road, and may way well have crept through the lorrys blind spot before reaching where it is now - not ideal if the lorry doesn't expect someone to be overtaking against traffic and adjusts his carriageway position for a hazard. MrWXYZ

9:26am Mon 11 Feb 13

MJI says...

I have been on the A46 loads of times and that does not look like it, that looks more like the A435.
.
A46 is Cheltenham, Winchcombe, Broadway, Stratford.
I have been on the A46 loads of times and that does not look like it, that looks more like the A435. . A46 is Cheltenham, Winchcombe, Broadway, Stratford. MJI

9:28am Mon 11 Feb 13

MJI says...

CYNIC_AL wrote:
There's no such thing as a dangerous road, only dangerous drivers...
Bad signage, poor surface, too much signage, blind summits, junctions on corners.
.
These can be dangerous.
.
No need to trot out the same text all the time.
[quote][p][bold]CYNIC_AL[/bold] wrote: There's no such thing as a dangerous road, only dangerous drivers...[/p][/quote]Bad signage, poor surface, too much signage, blind summits, junctions on corners. . These can be dangerous. . No need to trot out the same text all the time. MJI

9:29am Mon 11 Feb 13

MJI says...

Speed is not a killer, bad driving is.
Speed is not a killer, bad driving is. MJI

9:54am Mon 11 Feb 13

Arthur Blenkinsop says...

What is the point of overtaking on this road, unless you are stuck behind just one car doing about 40mph, you are not going to get anywhere in a hurry anyway, because you willl just end up sitting behind the car in front of the one you are overtaking. Turn up the radio, pull back a bit and just get on with it, your journey will only be delayed by a few seconds.
What is the point of overtaking on this road, unless you are stuck behind just one car doing about 40mph, you are not going to get anywhere in a hurry anyway, because you willl just end up sitting behind the car in front of the one you are overtaking. Turn up the radio, pull back a bit and just get on with it, your journey will only be delayed by a few seconds. Arthur Blenkinsop

10:29am Mon 11 Feb 13

i-cycle says...

MJI

Speeding when its not safe is bad and dangerous driving.

Speed limits are usually introduced on roads where its not safe.

Breaking the speed limit is therefore likely to be seen as bad driving.

That's certainly the position that will be taken in court.

Whether you like it or not speeding is therefore almost always going to be considered as bad driving.

But you are correct - speed in itself is not a killer.
MJI Speeding when its not safe is bad and dangerous driving. Speed limits are usually introduced on roads where its not safe. Breaking the speed limit is therefore likely to be seen as bad driving. That's certainly the position that will be taken in court. Whether you like it or not speeding is therefore almost always going to be considered as bad driving. But you are correct - speed in itself is not a killer. i-cycle

11:27am Mon 11 Feb 13

Guy66 says...

Arthur Blenkinsop wrote:
What is the point of overtaking on this road, unless you are stuck behind just one car doing about 40mph, you are not going to get anywhere in a hurry anyway, because you willl just end up sitting behind the car in front of the one you are overtaking. Turn up the radio, pull back a bit and just get on with it, your journey will only be delayed by a few seconds.
Some drivers like to have a clear view of the road ahead which is sometimes a little challenging behind a high sided vehicle. Any competent driver can easily overtake on this stretch of road. Its the buffoons that make driving dangerous these days!
[quote][p][bold]Arthur Blenkinsop[/bold] wrote: What is the point of overtaking on this road, unless you are stuck behind just one car doing about 40mph, you are not going to get anywhere in a hurry anyway, because you willl just end up sitting behind the car in front of the one you are overtaking. Turn up the radio, pull back a bit and just get on with it, your journey will only be delayed by a few seconds.[/p][/quote]Some drivers like to have a clear view of the road ahead which is sometimes a little challenging behind a high sided vehicle. Any competent driver can easily overtake on this stretch of road. Its the buffoons that make driving dangerous these days! Guy66

12:37pm Mon 11 Feb 13

MrWXYZ says...

Guy66 wrote:
Arthur Blenkinsop wrote: What is the point of overtaking on this road, unless you are stuck behind just one car doing about 40mph, you are not going to get anywhere in a hurry anyway, because you willl just end up sitting behind the car in front of the one you are overtaking. Turn up the radio, pull back a bit and just get on with it, your journey will only be delayed by a few seconds.
Some drivers like to have a clear view of the road ahead which is sometimes a little challenging behind a high sided vehicle. Any competent driver can easily overtake on this stretch of road. Its the buffoons that make driving dangerous these days!
would it not make more sense to drive a safe distance behind than overtake just based on vehicle height, especially if there is another vehicle infront of them and you are just cutting them up to get infront of them when they can't go any quicker anyway?
[quote][p][bold]Guy66[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Arthur Blenkinsop[/bold] wrote: What is the point of overtaking on this road, unless you are stuck behind just one car doing about 40mph, you are not going to get anywhere in a hurry anyway, because you willl just end up sitting behind the car in front of the one you are overtaking. Turn up the radio, pull back a bit and just get on with it, your journey will only be delayed by a few seconds.[/p][/quote]Some drivers like to have a clear view of the road ahead which is sometimes a little challenging behind a high sided vehicle. Any competent driver can easily overtake on this stretch of road. Its the buffoons that make driving dangerous these days![/p][/quote]would it not make more sense to drive a safe distance behind than overtake just based on vehicle height, especially if there is another vehicle infront of them and you are just cutting them up to get infront of them when they can't go any quicker anyway? MrWXYZ

1:29pm Mon 11 Feb 13

Vox populi says...

MrWXYZ wrote:
Guy66 wrote:
Arthur Blenkinsop wrote: What is the point of overtaking on this road, unless you are stuck behind just one car doing about 40mph, you are not going to get anywhere in a hurry anyway, because you willl just end up sitting behind the car in front of the one you are overtaking. Turn up the radio, pull back a bit and just get on with it, your journey will only be delayed by a few seconds.
Some drivers like to have a clear view of the road ahead which is sometimes a little challenging behind a high sided vehicle. Any competent driver can easily overtake on this stretch of road. Its the buffoons that make driving dangerous these days!
would it not make more sense to drive a safe distance behind than overtake just based on vehicle height, especially if there is another vehicle infront of them and you are just cutting them up to get infront of them when they can't go any quicker anyway?
Erm why would you be cutting up a vehicle in front? if safe stopping distances have been left then there should be room to pull back into the traffic after overtaking, so where is the example of poor driving?!?! ...........which brings you back to the real issue with this picture....

I would suggest that we are getting into driving attitudes now though..
[quote][p][bold]MrWXYZ[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Guy66[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Arthur Blenkinsop[/bold] wrote: What is the point of overtaking on this road, unless you are stuck behind just one car doing about 40mph, you are not going to get anywhere in a hurry anyway, because you willl just end up sitting behind the car in front of the one you are overtaking. Turn up the radio, pull back a bit and just get on with it, your journey will only be delayed by a few seconds.[/p][/quote]Some drivers like to have a clear view of the road ahead which is sometimes a little challenging behind a high sided vehicle. Any competent driver can easily overtake on this stretch of road. Its the buffoons that make driving dangerous these days![/p][/quote]would it not make more sense to drive a safe distance behind than overtake just based on vehicle height, especially if there is another vehicle infront of them and you are just cutting them up to get infront of them when they can't go any quicker anyway?[/p][/quote]Erm why would you be cutting up a vehicle in front? if safe stopping distances have been left then there should be room to pull back into the traffic after overtaking, so where is the example of poor driving?!?! ...........which brings you back to the real issue with this picture.... I would suggest that we are getting into driving attitudes now though.. Vox populi

2:14pm Mon 11 Feb 13

MrWXYZ says...

If you have a safe stopping distance between you and the vehicle infront, then someone pulls into this space then you no longer have this space as someone has cut in front of you. Unless of course you leave double the safe stopping distance in case someone should want to overtake you?!
Safe distances aside its just basically bad manners and queue jumping to overtake someone if they are in a trail of traffic and can't go any quicker.

But as you say thats driving attitudes and whatever the subject on roads some people will want to drive safely and courteously, some will want to drive selfishly and justify it, and some will want to blame the authorities for everything.
If you have a safe stopping distance between you and the vehicle infront, then someone pulls into this space then you no longer have this space as someone has cut in front of you. Unless of course you leave double the safe stopping distance in case someone should want to overtake you?! Safe distances aside its just basically bad manners and queue jumping to overtake someone if they are in a trail of traffic and can't go any quicker. But as you say thats driving attitudes and whatever the subject on roads some people will want to drive safely and courteously, some will want to drive selfishly and justify it, and some will want to blame the authorities for everything. MrWXYZ

4:27pm Mon 11 Feb 13

Vox populi says...

No MrWXYZ,

You leave a safe stopping distance between the car infront of you. If that car changes then you adjust your speed.

It is just basically bad manners to restrict everyone else on the road to your speed too and not accept that if you are driving under the speed limit somebody may wish to overtake you, leave them room in a gracious manner. It is probably better as it causes less frustration and puts you in a safer position too rather than have somebody frustrated behind you.

Its a case of live and let live I am afraid not foist your rush or non rush on anyone. Some might cause it common sense.
No MrWXYZ, You leave a safe stopping distance between the car infront of you. If that car changes then you adjust your speed. It is just basically bad manners to restrict everyone else on the road to your speed too and not accept that if you are driving under the speed limit somebody may wish to overtake you, leave them room in a gracious manner. It is probably better as it causes less frustration and puts you in a safer position too rather than have somebody frustrated behind you. Its a case of live and let live I am afraid not foist your rush or non rush on anyone. Some might cause it common sense. Vox populi

8:01pm Mon 11 Feb 13

MrWXYZ says...

Vox populi wrote:
No MrWXYZ,

You leave a safe stopping distance between the car infront of you. If that car changes then you adjust your speed.

It is just basically bad manners to restrict everyone else on the road to your speed too and not accept that if you are driving under the speed limit somebody may wish to overtake you, leave them room in a gracious manner. It is probably better as it causes less frustration and puts you in a safer position too rather than have somebody frustrated behind you.

Its a case of live and let live I am afraid not foist your rush or non rush on anyone. Some might cause it common sense.
I accept that if there is room infront and someone wants to overtake then go for it if safe. If you can't go quicker as you are in a stream of cars then people should accept that and all drive a safe distance - not overtake on the premise that a vehicle may be big or going below the speed limit.
Yes if someone does overtake and cut into that gap you should leave the safe distance but it doesn't mean the overtaker isn't driving badly. Often it means they are driving v badly as they can only look 1 car ahead and not watch and anticipate other things developing ahead
[quote][p][bold]Vox populi[/bold] wrote: No MrWXYZ, You leave a safe stopping distance between the car infront of you. If that car changes then you adjust your speed. It is just basically bad manners to restrict everyone else on the road to your speed too and not accept that if you are driving under the speed limit somebody may wish to overtake you, leave them room in a gracious manner. It is probably better as it causes less frustration and puts you in a safer position too rather than have somebody frustrated behind you. Its a case of live and let live I am afraid not foist your rush or non rush on anyone. Some might cause it common sense.[/p][/quote]I accept that if there is room infront and someone wants to overtake then go for it if safe. If you can't go quicker as you are in a stream of cars then people should accept that and all drive a safe distance - not overtake on the premise that a vehicle may be big or going below the speed limit. Yes if someone does overtake and cut into that gap you should leave the safe distance but it doesn't mean the overtaker isn't driving badly. Often it means they are driving v badly as they can only look 1 car ahead and not watch and anticipate other things developing ahead MrWXYZ

8:50pm Mon 11 Feb 13

Vox populi says...

Cutting in is bad driving but if you have no intention of overtaking then not leaving a gap to allow others to when it is clear and safe for them to do so is also bad driving showing lack of awareness and road sense.

I don't condone either behaviours as they cause frustration and accidents. It is purely about being aware and courteous to other road users.
Cutting in is bad driving but if you have no intention of overtaking then not leaving a gap to allow others to when it is clear and safe for them to do so is also bad driving showing lack of awareness and road sense. I don't condone either behaviours as they cause frustration and accidents. It is purely about being aware and courteous to other road users. Vox populi

9:25pm Mon 11 Feb 13

Biggles says...

i-cycle wrote:
Yep, and it sounds like Biggles (above) falls into the bad and irresponsible driver category. Its probably more by luck than judgement he hasn't caused an accident. 203,950 were injured and and 1,901 killed on our roads in 2011. 309,144 killed and 17.6 million were injured between 1951-2006. Each fatality costs us tax payers £1M on average and this jerk thinks he has the right to put other people's lives at risk just because he can afford a fast car. The sooner he gets banned the safer the rest of you will be.
Oh good god .... a cyclist.
.
All reasoning gone out of the window, everything is about them, now they are saving the planet, and how vunerable they are.
.
Senior observer, IAM here, I've spent a lot of time being taught, and teaching others how to drive their cars responsibly.
.
I will choose the speed I drive at, not some poxy cyclist.
.
So, you like quoting figures, along with Jaba the elder, you think anyone with an ungoverned shopping trolley is a menace on the roads, and you can't tell a jag from an aston !
.
What is your contribution to road safety ?
.
As I'm a jerk .... your words, I'll take any driving or riding (motorcycle, not poxy pushbikes, I grew out of those when I had my first licence at 16), assessment you like, road based, alongside you, lets see who the jerk is.
.
I don't actually like speeds above 120 mph, which I do very often on public roads, legally, but I'll be dammed if I'll be told by the likes of you, what is, and what isn't safe.
.
And I wish you well with speed limiters, the technology is there, and has been for quite a while, it'll be a brave government that tries to enact it, as your underpowered girly shopping trollies don't make much profit for car companies, or for the tax revenue on fuel, as you will have seen in the press recently.
[quote][p][bold]i-cycle[/bold] wrote: Yep, and it sounds like Biggles (above) falls into the bad and irresponsible driver category. Its probably more by luck than judgement he hasn't caused an accident. 203,950 were injured and and 1,901 killed on our roads in 2011. 309,144 killed and 17.6 million were injured between 1951-2006. Each fatality costs us tax payers £1M on average and this jerk thinks he has the right to put other people's lives at risk just because he can afford a fast car. The sooner he gets banned the safer the rest of you will be.[/p][/quote]Oh good god .... a cyclist. . All reasoning gone out of the window, everything is about them, now they are saving the planet, and how vunerable they are. . Senior observer, IAM here, I've spent a lot of time being taught, and teaching others how to drive their cars responsibly. . I will choose the speed I drive at, not some poxy cyclist. . So, you like quoting figures, along with Jaba the elder, you think anyone with an ungoverned shopping trolley is a menace on the roads, and you can't tell a jag from an aston ! . What is your contribution to road safety ? . As I'm a jerk .... your words, I'll take any driving or riding (motorcycle, not poxy pushbikes, I grew out of those when I had my first licence at 16), assessment you like, road based, alongside you, lets see who the jerk is. . I don't actually like speeds above 120 mph, which I do very often on public roads, legally, but I'll be dammed if I'll be told by the likes of you, what is, and what isn't safe. . And I wish you well with speed limiters, the technology is there, and has been for quite a while, it'll be a brave government that tries to enact it, as your underpowered girly shopping trollies don't make much profit for car companies, or for the tax revenue on fuel, as you will have seen in the press recently. Biggles

11:50pm Mon 11 Feb 13

Biggles says...

Bonzodog wrote:
Although bad and inappropriate driving is the root cause, it has to be wondered why certain roads have higher accident rates than others? Is it because their poor design actively encourages bad driving? It seems that a fair number of modern bypasses fall into that category, not just the A46 but as an another example, the A5 approaching Oswestry is of a similar design and, also, a notorious blackspot.
These type of roads used to be three lane, one each way, sort of thing, then one in the middle either side could use for overtaking.
.
That is the basis, you could actually use all three in one direction by law.
.
The center lane was known as a "suicide lane", for obvious reasons.
.
These were evetually, largely, done away with, but instead of "dual carragewaying", as traffic density often demanded, the cheaper option of two wide lanes was chosen.
.
In some parts of the country, Devon springs to mind as one, the three lanes have remained in parts, but are accompanied by double whites, so giving one direction two lanes for a couple of miles, then the opposite direction two lanes for the next couple of miles, and so on ........ this seems to work well.
.
Overtaking on these wide two lane roads is very easy, if you have good observation skills, and a powerful car, (the power actually makes things easier, despite what the safety cretins on here will tell you, as it allows you to complete the overtake quickly and smoothly, reducing the time you are exposed).
.
I have noticed that these "bad" roads either have bends, lots of them, or very limited overtaking , sometimes a mix of both.
.
Poor observation and hazard perception seems to be the main causes, rather than speed.
.
Dawdlers are as responsible as loonies, only the latter seem to be villified though.
[quote][p][bold]Bonzodog[/bold] wrote: Although bad and inappropriate driving is the root cause, it has to be wondered why certain roads have higher accident rates than others? Is it because their poor design actively encourages bad driving? It seems that a fair number of modern bypasses fall into that category, not just the A46 but as an another example, the A5 approaching Oswestry is of a similar design and, also, a notorious blackspot.[/p][/quote]These type of roads used to be three lane, one each way, sort of thing, then one in the middle either side could use for overtaking. . That is the basis, you could actually use all three in one direction by law. . The center lane was known as a "suicide lane", for obvious reasons. . These were evetually, largely, done away with, but instead of "dual carragewaying", as traffic density often demanded, the cheaper option of two wide lanes was chosen. . In some parts of the country, Devon springs to mind as one, the three lanes have remained in parts, but are accompanied by double whites, so giving one direction two lanes for a couple of miles, then the opposite direction two lanes for the next couple of miles, and so on ........ this seems to work well. . Overtaking on these wide two lane roads is very easy, if you have good observation skills, and a powerful car, (the power actually makes things easier, despite what the safety cretins on here will tell you, as it allows you to complete the overtake quickly and smoothly, reducing the time you are exposed). . I have noticed that these "bad" roads either have bends, lots of them, or very limited overtaking , sometimes a mix of both. . Poor observation and hazard perception seems to be the main causes, rather than speed. . Dawdlers are as responsible as loonies, only the latter seem to be villified though. Biggles

9:50am Tue 12 Feb 13

MrWXYZ says...

maybe we are at cross points vox - i only refer to when theres a constant stream of traffic and overtaking only gets you a car or 2 down the queue, which i think was the original point someone tried to make. If theres clear road ahead though then don't see the issue in overtaking more than 1 vehicle to get to it.

And biggles no dawdlers aren't as responsible as loonies. Dawdlers (which some people define as those sticking to speed limits) can be safely overtaken if patient. Surely by definition loonies are just a danger?
maybe we are at cross points vox - i only refer to when theres a constant stream of traffic and overtaking only gets you a car or 2 down the queue, which i think was the original point someone tried to make. If theres clear road ahead though then don't see the issue in overtaking more than 1 vehicle to get to it. And biggles no dawdlers aren't as responsible as loonies. Dawdlers (which some people define as those sticking to speed limits) can be safely overtaken if patient. Surely by definition loonies are just a danger? MrWXYZ

10:02am Tue 12 Feb 13

Jabbadad says...

By my definition loonies are those who think that their driving skills (I say this loosely) will compensate for them driving in a dangerous manner without any consideration for others, be it Cycles, Motor Cycles, Cars, Lorries and pedestrians, since they see themselves as good as the highly trained Racing, Rally, Or Emergency Services drivers. AND EVEN WITH THEIR EGO SKILLS AND A BADGE (God forbid) THEY DON'T COMPARE.
By my definition loonies are those who think that their driving skills (I say this loosely) will compensate for them driving in a dangerous manner without any consideration for others, be it Cycles, Motor Cycles, Cars, Lorries and pedestrians, since they see themselves as good as the highly trained Racing, Rally, Or Emergency Services drivers. AND EVEN WITH THEIR EGO SKILLS AND A BADGE (God forbid) THEY DON'T COMPARE. Jabbadad

12:06pm Tue 12 Feb 13

ushmush83 says...

Yawn! I thought this thread would be fun and interesting. But it's not.
Yawn! I thought this thread would be fun and interesting. But it's not. ushmush83

12:48pm Tue 12 Feb 13

Vox populi says...

Jabbadad wrote:
By my definition loonies are those who think that their driving skills (I say this loosely) will compensate for them driving in a dangerous manner without any consideration for others, be it Cycles, Motor Cycles, Cars, Lorries and pedestrians, since they see themselves as good as the highly trained Racing, Rally, Or Emergency Services drivers. AND EVEN WITH THEIR EGO SKILLS AND A BADGE (God forbid) THEY DON'T COMPARE.
I think you will find that the first thing anyone who has one of these "badges" (which incidently I have a number of) is taught is: there is no room for ego in driving.

Still you have your perception...

As mentioned power does make overtaking easier but with power comes responsibility. It is down to education of the person in control not blanket laws and speed resticters as suggested. Motorways would be great, would take elephant racing to a whole new level...
[quote][p][bold]Jabbadad[/bold] wrote: By my definition loonies are those who think that their driving skills (I say this loosely) will compensate for them driving in a dangerous manner without any consideration for others, be it Cycles, Motor Cycles, Cars, Lorries and pedestrians, since they see themselves as good as the highly trained Racing, Rally, Or Emergency Services drivers. AND EVEN WITH THEIR EGO SKILLS AND A BADGE (God forbid) THEY DON'T COMPARE.[/p][/quote]I think you will find that the first thing anyone who has one of these "badges" (which incidently I have a number of) is taught is: there is no room for ego in driving. Still you have your perception... As mentioned power does make overtaking easier but with power comes responsibility. It is down to education of the person in control not blanket laws and speed resticters as suggested. Motorways would be great, would take elephant racing to a whole new level... Vox populi

1:15pm Tue 12 Feb 13

mr_wilson15 says...

Jabbadad wrote:
I quite agree, just look at the picture, the car which could be the cause of an accident is the one overtaking, and obviously a High Powered Jag or such but anyway a fast car.
So since we can't leave it to the drivers, we need to have all cars by law compulsorily fitted with 70 mph speed limiters. And the only exceptions to be the Police, and Vehicles involved in emergency services, Ambulances, Fire engines etc. We had them on Army vehicles in 1956, and although they could be adjusted WOE BE-TIDE YOU if you got caught, it was straight on a charge which could have and did result in severe punishment.
So that's all it needs a speed limiter which is not regulated by those who profess to be more than capable in any circumstances, even the circumstance when they are just about to hit a stationary, or oncoming vehicle , or a pedestrian travelling at less than the speed limit (joke intended).The speed merchants will be able to travel on the HPS2 won't they?
It's CRUNCH TIME for someone.
Come on all the BOY RACERS now to say how much better they are under any circumstances.
Limiting cars is dangerous, since there are sure to be times where accelerating over the speed limit is the only way avoid collisions...
also I cannot be expected to outrun the police in a speed-limited car!
[quote][p][bold]Jabbadad[/bold] wrote: I quite agree, just look at the picture, the car which could be the cause of an accident is the one overtaking, and obviously a High Powered Jag or such but anyway a fast car. So since we can't leave it to the drivers, we need to have all cars by law compulsorily fitted with 70 mph speed limiters. And the only exceptions to be the Police, and Vehicles involved in emergency services, Ambulances, Fire engines etc. We had them on Army vehicles in 1956, and although they could be adjusted WOE BE-TIDE YOU if you got caught, it was straight on a charge which could have and did result in severe punishment. So that's all it needs a speed limiter which is not regulated by those who profess to be more than capable in any circumstances, even the circumstance when they are just about to hit a stationary, or oncoming vehicle , or a pedestrian travelling at less than the speed limit (joke intended).The speed merchants will be able to travel on the HPS2 won't they? It's CRUNCH TIME for someone. Come on all the BOY RACERS now to say how much better they are under any circumstances.[/p][/quote]Limiting cars is dangerous, since there are sure to be times where accelerating over the speed limit is the only way avoid collisions... also I cannot be expected to outrun the police in a speed-limited car! mr_wilson15

3:24pm Wed 13 Feb 13

More Tea Vicar says...

i-cycle wrote:
Yep, and it sounds like Biggles (above) falls into the bad and irresponsible driver category.

Its probably more by luck than judgement he hasn't caused an accident.

203,950 were injured and and 1,901 killed on our roads in 2011.

309,144 killed and 17.6 million were injured between 1951-2006.

Each fatality costs us tax payers £1M on average and this jerk thinks he has the right to put other people's lives at risk just because he can afford a fast car.

The sooner he gets banned the safer the rest of you will be.
I think you'll find the car is a Jag or probably an AM. In which case, the driver will quite legitimately expect other road users, Plebs, if you like, to know their place and get out of the way.
[quote][p][bold]i-cycle[/bold] wrote: Yep, and it sounds like Biggles (above) falls into the bad and irresponsible driver category. Its probably more by luck than judgement he hasn't caused an accident. 203,950 were injured and and 1,901 killed on our roads in 2011. 309,144 killed and 17.6 million were injured between 1951-2006. Each fatality costs us tax payers £1M on average and this jerk thinks he has the right to put other people's lives at risk just because he can afford a fast car. The sooner he gets banned the safer the rest of you will be.[/p][/quote]I think you'll find the car is a Jag or probably an AM. In which case, the driver will quite legitimately expect other road users, Plebs, if you like, to know their place and get out of the way. More Tea Vicar

11:28pm Wed 13 Feb 13

Vox populi says...

It is clearly an Aston Martin DB9.H

Touch of the green eyed monster vicar?!

Shame in this country we can't celebrate success rather than consider everyone who has is successful to the be the enemy isn't it?

Makes you want to claim benefits and live off the state or complain about them on here without examining your own attitude...
It is clearly an Aston Martin DB9.H Touch of the green eyed monster vicar?! Shame in this country we can't celebrate success rather than consider everyone who has is successful to the be the enemy isn't it? Makes you want to claim benefits and live off the state or complain about them on here without examining your own attitude... Vox populi

12:29am Thu 14 Feb 13

Biggles says...

mr_wilson15 wrote:
Jabbadad wrote: I quite agree, just look at the picture, the car which could be the cause of an accident is the one overtaking, and obviously a High Powered Jag or such but anyway a fast car. So since we can't leave it to the drivers, we need to have all cars by law compulsorily fitted with 70 mph speed limiters. And the only exceptions to be the Police, and Vehicles involved in emergency services, Ambulances, Fire engines etc. We had them on Army vehicles in 1956, and although they could be adjusted WOE BE-TIDE YOU if you got caught, it was straight on a charge which could have and did result in severe punishment. So that's all it needs a speed limiter which is not regulated by those who profess to be more than capable in any circumstances, even the circumstance when they are just about to hit a stationary, or oncoming vehicle , or a pedestrian travelling at less than the speed limit (joke intended).The speed merchants will be able to travel on the HPS2 won't they? It's CRUNCH TIME for someone. Come on all the BOY RACERS now to say how much better they are under any circumstances.
Limiting cars is dangerous, since there are sure to be times where accelerating over the speed limit is the only way avoid collisions... also I cannot be expected to outrun the police in a speed-limited car!
Although I support your stance sir, I for one will openly admit, I have NEVER accelerated myself out of trouble, into it, plenty of times, (especially when younger), but never out of it.
.
For some of us , motoring, two wheeled and four, is a joy, bordering on a hobby, (motorcycling for me is now a complete hobby).
.
I like powerful vehicles, two and four wheeled, as they put the driver in control. a lot of the dangers involved have gone, with all the electronic stability stuff (mostly cars of course), unless you are very unlucky (diesel spills and the like), it is very hard to lose control of them now.
.
I find it interesting that nine times out of ten, if my stability control indicates to me that it is dealing with an issue, I haven't identified it, (the electronics will pick up an issue long before the driver will notice any loss of grip, and correct it just as quickly).
.
You always have to remember of course, that the electronics can't beat physics !
.
Anti lock brakes, stability control, and sat nav, bloody marvelous inventions.
[quote][p][bold]mr_wilson15[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jabbadad[/bold] wrote: I quite agree, just look at the picture, the car which could be the cause of an accident is the one overtaking, and obviously a High Powered Jag or such but anyway a fast car. So since we can't leave it to the drivers, we need to have all cars by law compulsorily fitted with 70 mph speed limiters. And the only exceptions to be the Police, and Vehicles involved in emergency services, Ambulances, Fire engines etc. We had them on Army vehicles in 1956, and although they could be adjusted WOE BE-TIDE YOU if you got caught, it was straight on a charge which could have and did result in severe punishment. So that's all it needs a speed limiter which is not regulated by those who profess to be more than capable in any circumstances, even the circumstance when they are just about to hit a stationary, or oncoming vehicle , or a pedestrian travelling at less than the speed limit (joke intended).The speed merchants will be able to travel on the HPS2 won't they? It's CRUNCH TIME for someone. Come on all the BOY RACERS now to say how much better they are under any circumstances.[/p][/quote]Limiting cars is dangerous, since there are sure to be times where accelerating over the speed limit is the only way avoid collisions... also I cannot be expected to outrun the police in a speed-limited car![/p][/quote]Although I support your stance sir, I for one will openly admit, I have NEVER accelerated myself out of trouble, into it, plenty of times, (especially when younger), but never out of it. . For some of us , motoring, two wheeled and four, is a joy, bordering on a hobby, (motorcycling for me is now a complete hobby). . I like powerful vehicles, two and four wheeled, as they put the driver in control. a lot of the dangers involved have gone, with all the electronic stability stuff (mostly cars of course), unless you are very unlucky (diesel spills and the like), it is very hard to lose control of them now. . I find it interesting that nine times out of ten, if my stability control indicates to me that it is dealing with an issue, I haven't identified it, (the electronics will pick up an issue long before the driver will notice any loss of grip, and correct it just as quickly). . You always have to remember of course, that the electronics can't beat physics ! . Anti lock brakes, stability control, and sat nav, bloody marvelous inventions. Biggles

12:30am Thu 14 Feb 13

Biggles says...

mr_wilson15 wrote:
Jabbadad wrote: I quite agree, just look at the picture, the car which could be the cause of an accident is the one overtaking, and obviously a High Powered Jag or such but anyway a fast car. So since we can't leave it to the drivers, we need to have all cars by law compulsorily fitted with 70 mph speed limiters. And the only exceptions to be the Police, and Vehicles involved in emergency services, Ambulances, Fire engines etc. We had them on Army vehicles in 1956, and although they could be adjusted WOE BE-TIDE YOU if you got caught, it was straight on a charge which could have and did result in severe punishment. So that's all it needs a speed limiter which is not regulated by those who profess to be more than capable in any circumstances, even the circumstance when they are just about to hit a stationary, or oncoming vehicle , or a pedestrian travelling at less than the speed limit (joke intended).The speed merchants will be able to travel on the HPS2 won't they? It's CRUNCH TIME for someone. Come on all the BOY RACERS now to say how much better they are under any circumstances.
Limiting cars is dangerous, since there are sure to be times where accelerating over the speed limit is the only way avoid collisions... also I cannot be expected to outrun the police in a speed-limited car!
Although I support your stance sir, I for one will openly admit, I have NEVER accelerated myself out of trouble, into it, plenty of times, (especially when younger), but never out of it.
.
For some of us , motoring, two wheeled and four, is a joy, bordering on a hobby, (motorcycling for me is now a complete hobby).
.
I like powerful vehicles, two and four wheeled, as they put the driver in control. a lot of the dangers involved have gone, with all the electronic stability stuff (mostly cars of course), unless you are very unlucky (diesel spills and the like), it is very hard to lose control of them now.
.
I find it interesting that nine times out of ten, if my stability control indicates to me that it is dealing with an issue, I haven't identified it, (the electronics will pick up an issue long before the driver will notice any loss of grip, and correct it just as quickly).
.
You always have to remember of course, that the electronics can't beat physics !
.
Anti lock brakes, stability control, and sat nav, bloody marvelous inventions.
[quote][p][bold]mr_wilson15[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jabbadad[/bold] wrote: I quite agree, just look at the picture, the car which could be the cause of an accident is the one overtaking, and obviously a High Powered Jag or such but anyway a fast car. So since we can't leave it to the drivers, we need to have all cars by law compulsorily fitted with 70 mph speed limiters. And the only exceptions to be the Police, and Vehicles involved in emergency services, Ambulances, Fire engines etc. We had them on Army vehicles in 1956, and although they could be adjusted WOE BE-TIDE YOU if you got caught, it was straight on a charge which could have and did result in severe punishment. So that's all it needs a speed limiter which is not regulated by those who profess to be more than capable in any circumstances, even the circumstance when they are just about to hit a stationary, or oncoming vehicle , or a pedestrian travelling at less than the speed limit (joke intended).The speed merchants will be able to travel on the HPS2 won't they? It's CRUNCH TIME for someone. Come on all the BOY RACERS now to say how much better they are under any circumstances.[/p][/quote]Limiting cars is dangerous, since there are sure to be times where accelerating over the speed limit is the only way avoid collisions... also I cannot be expected to outrun the police in a speed-limited car![/p][/quote]Although I support your stance sir, I for one will openly admit, I have NEVER accelerated myself out of trouble, into it, plenty of times, (especially when younger), but never out of it. . For some of us , motoring, two wheeled and four, is a joy, bordering on a hobby, (motorcycling for me is now a complete hobby). . I like powerful vehicles, two and four wheeled, as they put the driver in control. a lot of the dangers involved have gone, with all the electronic stability stuff (mostly cars of course), unless you are very unlucky (diesel spills and the like), it is very hard to lose control of them now. . I find it interesting that nine times out of ten, if my stability control indicates to me that it is dealing with an issue, I haven't identified it, (the electronics will pick up an issue long before the driver will notice any loss of grip, and correct it just as quickly). . You always have to remember of course, that the electronics can't beat physics ! . Anti lock brakes, stability control, and sat nav, bloody marvelous inventions. Biggles

9:26am Thu 14 Feb 13

pronstar says...

Biggles wrote:
mr_wilson15 wrote:
Jabbadad wrote: I quite agree, just look at the picture, the car which could be the cause of an accident is the one overtaking, and obviously a High Powered Jag or such but anyway a fast car. So since we can't leave it to the drivers, we need to have all cars by law compulsorily fitted with 70 mph speed limiters. And the only exceptions to be the Police, and Vehicles involved in emergency services, Ambulances, Fire engines etc. We had them on Army vehicles in 1956, and although they could be adjusted WOE BE-TIDE YOU if you got caught, it was straight on a charge which could have and did result in severe punishment. So that's all it needs a speed limiter which is not regulated by those who profess to be more than capable in any circumstances, even the circumstance when they are just about to hit a stationary, or oncoming vehicle , or a pedestrian travelling at less than the speed limit (joke intended).The speed merchants will be able to travel on the HPS2 won't they? It's CRUNCH TIME for someone. Come on all the BOY RACERS now to say how much better they are under any circumstances.
Limiting cars is dangerous, since there are sure to be times where accelerating over the speed limit is the only way avoid collisions... also I cannot be expected to outrun the police in a speed-limited car!
Although I support your stance sir, I for one will openly admit, I have NEVER accelerated myself out of trouble, into it, plenty of times, (especially when younger), but never out of it.
.
For some of us , motoring, two wheeled and four, is a joy, bordering on a hobby, (motorcycling for me is now a complete hobby).
.
I like powerful vehicles, two and four wheeled, as they put the driver in control. a lot of the dangers involved have gone, with all the electronic stability stuff (mostly cars of course), unless you are very unlucky (diesel spills and the like), it is very hard to lose control of them now.
.
I find it interesting that nine times out of ten, if my stability control indicates to me that it is dealing with an issue, I haven't identified it, (the electronics will pick up an issue long before the driver will notice any loss of grip, and correct it just as quickly).
.
You always have to remember of course, that the electronics can't beat physics !
.
Anti lock brakes, stability control, and sat nav, bloody marvelous inventions.
Biggles wrote: I find it interesting that nine times out of ten, if my stability control indicates to me that it is dealing with an issue, I haven't identified it


Yeah me too. Now will you please just go and crack one off to Top Gear and stop this nonsense?

Men who are into cars are so boring.
[quote][p][bold]Biggles[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mr_wilson15[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jabbadad[/bold] wrote: I quite agree, just look at the picture, the car which could be the cause of an accident is the one overtaking, and obviously a High Powered Jag or such but anyway a fast car. So since we can't leave it to the drivers, we need to have all cars by law compulsorily fitted with 70 mph speed limiters. And the only exceptions to be the Police, and Vehicles involved in emergency services, Ambulances, Fire engines etc. We had them on Army vehicles in 1956, and although they could be adjusted WOE BE-TIDE YOU if you got caught, it was straight on a charge which could have and did result in severe punishment. So that's all it needs a speed limiter which is not regulated by those who profess to be more than capable in any circumstances, even the circumstance when they are just about to hit a stationary, or oncoming vehicle , or a pedestrian travelling at less than the speed limit (joke intended).The speed merchants will be able to travel on the HPS2 won't they? It's CRUNCH TIME for someone. Come on all the BOY RACERS now to say how much better they are under any circumstances.[/p][/quote]Limiting cars is dangerous, since there are sure to be times where accelerating over the speed limit is the only way avoid collisions... also I cannot be expected to outrun the police in a speed-limited car![/p][/quote]Although I support your stance sir, I for one will openly admit, I have NEVER accelerated myself out of trouble, into it, plenty of times, (especially when younger), but never out of it. . For some of us , motoring, two wheeled and four, is a joy, bordering on a hobby, (motorcycling for me is now a complete hobby). . I like powerful vehicles, two and four wheeled, as they put the driver in control. a lot of the dangers involved have gone, with all the electronic stability stuff (mostly cars of course), unless you are very unlucky (diesel spills and the like), it is very hard to lose control of them now. . I find it interesting that nine times out of ten, if my stability control indicates to me that it is dealing with an issue, I haven't identified it, (the electronics will pick up an issue long before the driver will notice any loss of grip, and correct it just as quickly). . You always have to remember of course, that the electronics can't beat physics ! . Anti lock brakes, stability control, and sat nav, bloody marvelous inventions.[/p][/quote][quote][p][bold]Biggles[/bold] wrote: I find it interesting that nine times out of ten, if my stability control indicates to me that it is dealing with an issue, I haven't identified it[/p][/quote] Yeah me too. Now will you please just go and crack one off to Top Gear and stop this nonsense? Men who are into cars are so boring. pronstar

9:31am Thu 14 Feb 13

i-cycle says...

...and men who are into cycling?
...and men who are into cycling? i-cycle

10:01am Thu 14 Feb 13

pronstar says...

i-cycle wrote:
...and men who are into cycling?
are very cool
[quote][p][bold]i-cycle[/bold] wrote: ...and men who are into cycling?[/p][/quote]are very cool pronstar

1:23pm Thu 14 Feb 13

Vox populi says...

pronstar wrote:
i-cycle wrote: ...and men who are into cycling?
are very cool
Or quite clearly childish...
[quote][p][bold]pronstar[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]i-cycle[/bold] wrote: ...and men who are into cycling?[/p][/quote]are very cool[/p][/quote]Or quite clearly childish... Vox populi

1:28pm Thu 14 Feb 13

MJI says...

Biggles wrote:
mr_wilson15 wrote:
Jabbadad wrote: I quite agree, just look at the picture, the car which could be the cause of an accident is the one overtaking, and obviously a High Powered Jag or such but anyway a fast car. So since we can't leave it to the drivers, we need to have all cars by law compulsorily fitted with 70 mph speed limiters. And the only exceptions to be the Police, and Vehicles involved in emergency services, Ambulances, Fire engines etc. We had them on Army vehicles in 1956, and although they could be adjusted WOE BE-TIDE YOU if you got caught, it was straight on a charge which could have and did result in severe punishment. So that's all it needs a speed limiter which is not regulated by those who profess to be more than capable in any circumstances, even the circumstance when they are just about to hit a stationary, or oncoming vehicle , or a pedestrian travelling at less than the speed limit (joke intended).The speed merchants will be able to travel on the HPS2 won't they? It's CRUNCH TIME for someone. Come on all the BOY RACERS now to say how much better they are under any circumstances.
Limiting cars is dangerous, since there are sure to be times where accelerating over the speed limit is the only way avoid collisions... also I cannot be expected to outrun the police in a speed-limited car!
Although I support your stance sir, I for one will openly admit, I have NEVER accelerated myself out of trouble, into it, plenty of times, (especially when younger), but never out of it.
.
For some of us , motoring, two wheeled and four, is a joy, bordering on a hobby, (motorcycling for me is now a complete hobby).
.
I like powerful vehicles, two and four wheeled, as they put the driver in control. a lot of the dangers involved have gone, with all the electronic stability stuff (mostly cars of course), unless you are very unlucky (diesel spills and the like), it is very hard to lose control of them now.
.
I find it interesting that nine times out of ten, if my stability control indicates to me that it is dealing with an issue, I haven't identified it, (the electronics will pick up an issue long before the driver will notice any loss of grip, and correct it just as quickly).
.
You always have to remember of course, that the electronics can't beat physics !
.
Anti lock brakes, stability control, and sat nav, bloody marvelous inventions.
I have had to, near end of overtake the person I was passing put his foot down, so I used my cars extra performance to finish the move safely as it was safer than braking.
.
Already 3/4 past before they booted it.
.
Twice in 20 years, first was an idiot who tried it on with lots of cars, dealt with by a calling a friend with a white company car with blue lights at work, second was just a prat.
.
That first one was a common subject for at least a week among users of that road with his dangerous driving (dangerous overtakes, accelerating while being overtaken, no brake lights, brake testing with no brake lights, swerving all over the road)
[quote][p][bold]Biggles[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mr_wilson15[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jabbadad[/bold] wrote: I quite agree, just look at the picture, the car which could be the cause of an accident is the one overtaking, and obviously a High Powered Jag or such but anyway a fast car. So since we can't leave it to the drivers, we need to have all cars by law compulsorily fitted with 70 mph speed limiters. And the only exceptions to be the Police, and Vehicles involved in emergency services, Ambulances, Fire engines etc. We had them on Army vehicles in 1956, and although they could be adjusted WOE BE-TIDE YOU if you got caught, it was straight on a charge which could have and did result in severe punishment. So that's all it needs a speed limiter which is not regulated by those who profess to be more than capable in any circumstances, even the circumstance when they are just about to hit a stationary, or oncoming vehicle , or a pedestrian travelling at less than the speed limit (joke intended).The speed merchants will be able to travel on the HPS2 won't they? It's CRUNCH TIME for someone. Come on all the BOY RACERS now to say how much better they are under any circumstances.[/p][/quote]Limiting cars is dangerous, since there are sure to be times where accelerating over the speed limit is the only way avoid collisions... also I cannot be expected to outrun the police in a speed-limited car![/p][/quote]Although I support your stance sir, I for one will openly admit, I have NEVER accelerated myself out of trouble, into it, plenty of times, (especially when younger), but never out of it. . For some of us , motoring, two wheeled and four, is a joy, bordering on a hobby, (motorcycling for me is now a complete hobby). . I like powerful vehicles, two and four wheeled, as they put the driver in control. a lot of the dangers involved have gone, with all the electronic stability stuff (mostly cars of course), unless you are very unlucky (diesel spills and the like), it is very hard to lose control of them now. . I find it interesting that nine times out of ten, if my stability control indicates to me that it is dealing with an issue, I haven't identified it, (the electronics will pick up an issue long before the driver will notice any loss of grip, and correct it just as quickly). . You always have to remember of course, that the electronics can't beat physics ! . Anti lock brakes, stability control, and sat nav, bloody marvelous inventions.[/p][/quote]I have had to, near end of overtake the person I was passing put his foot down, so I used my cars extra performance to finish the move safely as it was safer than braking. . Already 3/4 past before they booted it. . Twice in 20 years, first was an idiot who tried it on with lots of cars, dealt with by a calling a friend with a white company car with blue lights at work, second was just a prat. . That first one was a common subject for at least a week among users of that road with his dangerous driving (dangerous overtakes, accelerating while being overtaken, no brake lights, brake testing with no brake lights, swerving all over the road) MJI

1:30pm Thu 14 Feb 13

MJI says...

i-cycle wrote:
...and men who are into cycling?
Own interesting cars like Porsches and Nissans.
.
Based among a sample of cyclists I know.
[quote][p][bold]i-cycle[/bold] wrote: ...and men who are into cycling?[/p][/quote]Own interesting cars like Porsches and Nissans. . Based among a sample of cyclists I know. MJI

11:14pm Thu 14 Feb 13

Guy66 says...

How about three muppets on the Malvern road in a flat bedded truck "gardening company" who thought it was funny to throw a full but open can of coke out the window and into the line of cars behind. These type of flass holes need dealing with!
How about three muppets on the Malvern road in a flat bedded truck "gardening company" who thought it was funny to throw a full but open can of coke out the window and into the line of cars behind. These type of flass holes need dealing with! Guy66

9:28am Fri 15 Feb 13

lillaneyb says...

The affect of a death of a family member from a traffic accident is devastating.

Accidents are caused by irresponsible driving, including speeding. Speaking as a relative of one of the fatalities from this stretch of road, speeding may not always cause accidents but when at speed the outcome is far worse. The 2010 fatalities were involved in a crash whilst the cars were travelling at 30mph. They died instantly on impact.

As a driver you are not only responsible for yourself but others using the road too, be it other drivers, cyclists or pedestrians.

Consider the impact your driving could have on yourself, your family and others around you and drive responsibly. This shouldn't have to be imposed by laws or safety measures.
The affect of a death of a family member from a traffic accident is devastating. Accidents are caused by irresponsible driving, including speeding. Speaking as a relative of one of the fatalities from this stretch of road, speeding may not always cause accidents but when at speed the outcome is far worse. The 2010 fatalities were involved in a crash whilst the cars were travelling at 30mph. They died instantly on impact. As a driver you are not only responsible for yourself but others using the road too, be it other drivers, cyclists or pedestrians. Consider the impact your driving could have on yourself, your family and others around you and drive responsibly. This shouldn't have to be imposed by laws or safety measures. lillaneyb

2:07pm Fri 15 Feb 13

suzieball says...

well said lillaneyb we all miss him and wish we don't have to hear of more accidents on that stretch of road.
well said lillaneyb we all miss him and wish we don't have to hear of more accidents on that stretch of road. suzieball

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree