Conference terri::cars_uk

The operative word being COULD!. This is simply more journalistic 
scaremongering based on some ministers musing about how to rob - I mean 
fine - speeders.

Richard

    What a complete waste of money. I presume we are talking helicopters
    here. I've heard that they have already started using them on the M40.
    Do you know how much it costs to keep a helicopter in the air.
    Potsofmoney is an expression that spring to mind. Air Ambulances are
    being dropped in many areas as they are too expensive. Unless a
    motorway speeder is driving aggressively or at warp factor 8 there's no
    point in stopping him/her. On the telly last week there was a
    documentary where a camera crew was allowed in the back of a patrol
    car. They were filming when a car was clocked at 92. The didn't stop
    him. The officer stated that he wasn't driving aggressively. If he come
    up behind other cars flashing his light etc then that would be
    different. After all is said and done motorways are still the safest
    roads in this country. Charging people for going a tad over the speed
    limit is a complete load of b@$&!()s.
    
    Cheers
    
       Andy.

    I don't think that the report meant helicopters as it implied that
    anyone speeding would be fined, not just those that were caught. I
    presume that they were talking about cameras on bridges etc.
    
    Terry

	The BBC TV breakfast news had this as an item this morning!
	They addopted the angle that it would allow the "rich" to
	drive at higher speeds as they could afford the fines.

	A spokesman for the RAC said on Radio 1 (where the news is
	always sensationalised!!!) "...that someone travelling at
	45mph past a school is much more dangerous that someone
	doing 75mph on a motorway.

	Graham

>	A spokesman for the RAC said on Radio 1 (where the news is
>	always sensationalised!!!) "...that someone travelling at
>	45mph past a school is much more dangerous that someone
>	doing 75mph on a motorway.

	Pah, with all those cars parked on the /\/\/\/\ crossing lines, and 
	double parked with doors open, ain't know way you can go 45mph past
	a school (unless it's summer holiday) even if you are an experienced 
	rally driver!

	Heather

    re .3   OK, so it's cameras and not helicopters. I still stand by my
    opinion that it's a waste of money though. In this documentary that I
    referred to in .2 the officer being interviewed stated that these days
    people's attitude towards the police was at an all time low and that
    his job not only required law enforcement but also contained a large
    amount of public relations work and this was why he didn't stop
    everyone just because they were speeding. If cameras are introduced
    they just won't be playing the game fairly.

    The actual thing referred to is a Government idea related to road
    tolls. The idea is a fixed charge for using a motorway (eg #7 or #xxx
    per annum) with a fine system for speeding. That is to say, if you
    cover the 420 miles from London-Glasgow in less than 6 hours you get
    fined #x for each mile an hour over 70 X 420 miles. 
    
    EG - if you did the trip in 5 hours, that equates to 84 mph average,
    the fine would therefore be -
    14 x (say) .05p x 420 = #294 fine
    
    Hence the comments about subsidised speeding for the rich. If you can
    afford a Ferrari F40 you can afford #300!
    
    Paul

    �but also contained a large amount of public relations work...
    �just because they were speeding
    
    I confess that I drive a tad over the speed limit on m'ways but am
    alarmed by this police guy's attitude. I thought it was the job of the
    police to enforce the law no matter what it is. Not to be Mr Popular
    and enforce it only when he thinks its worth it. Letting off someone
    doing 92 mph surprises me as only 8mph more and you can be banned from
    driving "just for speeding".
    
    I'll remeber that expression if I get stopped - "Well, I was _just_
    speeding officer".
    
    Royston
                                                                 

    re . -1 .
    
    I tend to agree. I was quite suprised by the officer's attitude and to
    be honest so was the film crew. Quote: " So you're not even going to
    give him a warning?" Reply: the bit about PR. I wish I had recorded the
    documentary now. There's far too much grey area in this matter.

On toll roads the way around the problem of being caught speeding is to stop off
on the way.  Thus the average speed will drop.  I can easily imagine
high-mileage drivers actually calculating the amount of time they can stop for.
It's then a very short step towards the scenario that people would deliberately
speed even more so that that they could have a longer rest on the way.

Steven

	Someone else asked it, I too would like to know how much is a "#" worth
in �s?

	Just in case it is isn't lazyness, Hold down the "Compose Character" key
and whilst doing so, press the "Space Bar."  The next two character keys 
pressed will be overprinted to make the required character.

eg.
	M�na, � (capital L and minus), Citr�en, �, �, � etc. etc.  Have a play,
it is marvellous what can be created this way

	Trying to be helpfull,

				Malcolm.

    Rathole.
    
    It depends if their keyboard set up is British or not�
    
    It could look like a pound sign to them but those not on british setup 
    
    see a gate sign!!
    
    Ian. 

    I've offered this view before and no doubt I'll be blacked again.
    
    The other week 3 miners died, I'm very sorry about that, it was
    national news, there are several inquiries and if you asked anyone on a
    Clapham bus all would agree that something needs to be put right and it
    must never happen again.
    
    Each year thousands of people die and are injured on the roads. Yet it
    seems to me that every time an attempt is made to reduce this carnage
    there is a general upswell against it. I accept that speed does not
    cause all accidents, but it does cause some and also when an accident
    occurs the speed of the vehicles has a direct relationship with the
    damage and injuries.
    
    I speed. I agree that speed past a school is more dangerous than speed
    on a motorway. In general most people drive faster than they safely are
    capable of. I speed because statistically I won't get caught. I would
    like to think people would slow down because they are responsible - I
    ceased being so naieve years ago. law enforcement has to be the next
    attempt to reduce the number of deaths and injuries on our roads.
    
    Andrew

    re .13
    
    Well put.
    
    /paul

    >  I speed.
    
    Hello, is that the Yorkshire constabulary. I have some evidence you may
    be interested in.
    
    ;^)
      
    Greg

This is after all the silly season with the Government off on their hols. But
seriously, this smacks of BIG BROTHER. The civil liberties people will have a 
field day if ever this was put into a road traffic act. Your vehicle will be
tagged and electronic sensors will detect you every mile you travel on the road.
You will then get a bill through the post. So some spotty face youth nicks your
car and drives like a loony then smashes the thing up. Not only do you loose
your car, have also the hassle of making an insurance claim, you have to pay HMG
for the proveledge of letting him take your car in the first place. How are they
going to fine the visitors to the UK ? the police usually give up of foreign
plated cars now.

Some commentators put the price at 10p per 1mph over the limit per mile.

ergo London to Glasgow 420 miles @ 80mph = 450 * 10 * 0.10 = �450.00.

This makes public transport (rail) and airline (BA & BM) very attractive.

The alternative is to fit speed limiters to all cars set at 100kph just like
trucks/coaches are supposed to be. Now why was that truck doing 90mph on the M40
yesterday ?

Stephen D

 

    .8�    I confess that I drive a tad over the speed limit on m'ways but am
    .8�    alarmed by this police guy's attitude. I thought it was the job of the
    .8�    police to enforce the law no matter what it is. Not to be Mr Popular
    .8�    and enforce it only when he thinks its worth it.
    
       Well, my view is the opposite, in that I'm pleased that the police
    aren't taking the basic view that speed is in itself bad but are
    instead looking at the overall standard of driving.
    

    
    
    
    
    
    			S P E E D   K I L L S.
    
    
    

>    Each year thousands of people die and are injured on the roads. Yet it
>    seems to me that every time an attempt is made to reduce this carnage
>    there is a general upswell against it. I accept that speed does not
>    cause all accidents, but it does cause some and also when an accident
>    occurs the speed of the vehicles has a direct relationship with the
>    damage and injuries.
 
I think the reason people are unhappy about the latest attempts to catch
speeding motorists is that it is accepted that motorways have the fewest
accidents, and only a minority of fatalities are speed related; the traffic
cop who was being interviewed on telly the other day stated that 20% of
fatalities occured on the hard shoulder, and another 50% occured in poor
weather conditions.

It seems a bit misdirected to try and catch motorists where there isn't a
problem (but where large revenues could be raised due to the volume of
traffic exceeding the speed limit) and to make no mention of installing these
devices where they would be useful, for example, to cut down on speeding
through residential areas where the fatalities actually occur.  I don't
understand why they're prepared to invest huge amounts of money to catch
motorists on safe roads, yet it's virtually impossible to get them to
introduce any form of speed restriction on the dangerous ones.

Chris.   

    .19 says it for me. This, if it's true, is clearly a revenue-generating
    exercise. They should spend more time looking for the criminals that
    are less easy to catch than the PBM (Poor Bloody Motorist).
    
    Laurie.

    .18�    			S P E E D   K I L L S.
    		
    					Simplistic rather than simple.

    
    
    
    
    
 >>>   			S P E E D   K I L L S.
    
    
    
			T W A D D L E ! ! ! !


	Try finding all the dead Astronauts!!!!!

	The only dead ones of which I know died on the launch pad before the 
thing started moving!

	So by your definition, staying in one place kills.

	You should have beeen living a hundred years ago, when a motor vehicle 
needed a man with a red flag walking in front of it.

				Malcolm (without a smiley).

    re .23
    
    That excludes the ones who died when Challenger (?) blew up just after
    launch?
    
    I don't think anyone who says "speed kills" intends the phrase to be
    used outside the frame of reference which is cars on roads. Besides we
    are all orbiting the sun at some phenomenal rate.
    
    Speed does not kill. Speed makes things worse and increases the risk.
    
    Snorting it makes things even worse.
    
    Andrew
    

>    his job not only required law enforcement but also contained a large
>    amount of public relations work and this was why he didn't stop
>    everyone just because they were speeding. If cameras are introduced
>    they just won't be playing the game fairly.
>


great !!! now coppers are allowing people to break the law so they have a
"nice" image?????

set the speed limit to 80 on motorways
set the fine as 100 pounds for every mph above the speed limit
and one months ban for every mph above the speed limit

I'm not made of money but a fine and a few points don't scare me into
travelling less than 80(I know I shouldn't :-))/70/60/40/30
it's simple safety

now, losing my license (even for one month) would scare me into driving below a
speed limit

	and 20mph speed limit outside schools, inside town centers etc

travelling is VERY easy and quick (what odds does the odd slow section make?)


	Paul.

I see this as a revenue excersize ( where else can the budget deficit get paid
from ?).

I alwyas used to drive sloooowly past the school which I used to live near 
(apart from all those mums parking on the zig-zags! making it difficult to
go fast anyway!) but on a virtually daily basis I would get OVERTAKEN!

Let's get those mad *&^%$&^%& off the road - and have some sense on the 
generally safe motorways. Why not raise the limit to 90mph, then have legally
enforceable limits during bad weather and road works - AND have the Police 
enforce them - this would make their job easier too!

    > I alwyas used to drive sloooowly past the school which I used to live
    
    I continue to drive slowly past the local school.  My daughter attends
    there two afternoons a week - what would you do?
    
    Richard

    What is the problem driving at 80/90 (as apposed to the limit of 70)
    when the motorway is clear and visibility is good ie.on an early summer
    morning at 06:00.
    
    I can't see a problem.Some police would not agree!
    
    Steve %^)
    

    There is scant detail surrounding the tracking methods, would it have
    anything to do with the new antennaes installed along the M40 & M5 ?
    
    Germany seems to have the best idea here. No enforced speed limit on
    autobahns except at roadworks & I think during bad weather. I believe
    their Motorway accident rate compares with ours. If we're going for
    technology, then I believe a much safer gismo would be a dash-top "You
    are driving too close" flashing light & bleeper. More affective
    than the tug on the collar from Old Bill, as everyone would receive a
    warning. Ok OK so so there are people who would ignor it, but the sad
    truth is most people just dont believe they were driving too close
    after the event. The defensive retort from drivers is probably "But
    the road was slippery" or "But my tyres were down to 2mm" or "The bloke
    in front stopped so I had no chance", or "I was watching for his brake
    lights but they obviously didnt work" & so on.
    
    Speed  does not cause accidents. Being unable to stop because one is
    too close does.
    
    Tony, who campaigned with the local police to school ><><>< lines
    clear.
    
     I Wish I c��ld make zigzags.

    RE: .29
    
    >>Germany seems to have the best idea here. No enforced speed limit on
    >>autobahns except at roadworks & I think during bad weather. 
    
    I think you will be surprised as to how much of the (West) German
    autobahn system is controlled by speed limits. [I say West German as I
    haven't experienced the old East German "autobahn" system]. The numbers
    of restricted/unrestricted autobahn kms is found somewhere in the
    EURO_MOTORING conference.
    
    When you have junctions, in many cases even when they have just a slip
    road off, you will often (normally?) see something like 100 kph speed
    limit. Some places have overhead gantry speed cameras in the fast lane
    to catch the folks that didn't "see" the speed limit signs (I received
    a nice letter in the post when I lived in Munich from the authorities
    near Frankfurt a few years back).

    I made a mistake it was the GERMANY conference not EURO_MOTORING.
    
    From note 385.24
    
"I don't believe that a general speed limit is worth the effort. I don't have 
"today's numbers, but if I remember correctly there were only ~2500 km out of 
"8000+ km without a speed limit in the days before unification. With a general 
"speed limit on the ex-DDR highways, this adds a few 1000 km to the total, and 
"none to the unlimited fraction, so today there should be less than 25 %  of all 
"Autobahns without a speed limit.
    
    
    And from note 385.6
    
"    Some stretches of Autobahn have limits at night, because of the noise
"    (e.g. 80 or 100 between, say, 22-06). These are obviously ones that
"    pass densely populated areas.
    
    
    And finally from 385.3, just in case someone is involved in an accident
    
"    It's worth noting that there is a RECOMMENDED limit (as opposed to a
"    mandatory limit) of 130 kph on the autobahns. This was of virtually no
"    importance until earlier this year a court ruled that if you have an
"    accident travelling in excess of 130 kph then you automatically share
"    the blame unless you can prove that your speed played no part in the
"    accident - not possible I think.
    

    If it were only the drivers that suffered from accidents made fatal by
    excessive speed there would not be a problem, it would sort itself out
    fairly quickly. 

    But it's not is it ?

I don't know if this is the right place for this warning, but it
seems as good as any. 

It has just been announced on the lunchtime news that there is to
be the largest nationwide crackdown on speeding ever carried out
in the UK. All police forces are involved, and if I remember
correctly, it will start at the beginning of May.

Clive

	Anything to avoid trying to catch criminals.

	-John

It'll help sort out the Budget deficit as well.

Chris.

    RE: .33
    
    Pathetic.
    
    Laurie.

    
    I happened to be in Reading police station last week to sort out
    some details on my stolen car. As I was waiting there, a young lad
    came in who was obviously upset and whose face showed distinct
    signs of having been in a fight.
    
    I was amazed that after a cursory inspection he was told that his
    injuries were not serious enough to warrant the police bringing
    a charge of actual bodily harm against his attacker and that he
    should take out a private prosecuetion for commom assualt. In other
    words the police couldn't give a toss.
    
    How the police can balance this pathetic attitude to the care of the 
    general public with their continuing harrasment of motorists is
    beyond me. 
    
    Richard.

re .37, a similar complaint...

I think I've already whinged about this one, but a couple of years ago
a few friends of mine and myself were attacked by a gang of yobs, one of
my friends ending up concussed after being hit on the head by an offensive
weapon (a morning star or some such).  While he was taken to hospital, we
went to the police station, and waited probably a couple of hours before
anyone even acknowledged our existance.  We were told brusquely that they
were unable to do anything about it as they were understaffed.

On the short drive back home there seemed to be something of a surplus
of traffic police lurking in quiet lay-bys, doing absolutely s*d all.  I
was not impressed.

Chris.

    RE the last few:
    
    That, in a nutshell, is the basis for my remark.
    
    Laurie.

    
    re .34
    
    Plod's number one job is to preserve life, then to protect property.
    Unfortunately the government has a mass of data from all over the world
    that shows that the higher the speed limit the greater the death and
    injury rate. Hence the clampdown on "speeding". We can expect more of
    it.
    
    Ian.
    

    It occurred to me that this "all time low" in road fatalities is more
    to do with better car construction and seat belts. In other words very
    little to do with keeping speeds down on motorways which enjoy good
    accident records anyway.
    
    IMHO suburban road accidents can be better addressed by road calming
    measures (and I don't just mean humps).
    
    Easy to catch speeders (especially if you use helicopters) but are you
    really tackling the underlying causes?
    
    rupert

    
    re .41
    
    I've read and re-read this note. I don't see how Plod catching
    people speeding is going to save any lives.
    
    Prosecuting people who assualt members of the public would be
    a move in the right direction.             
    
    Richard.

    re .43
    
    Well read it again.
    
    Speed may or may not cause accidents, it is a long running debate. What
    is not questioned by anyone I know is that the higher the speed then
    the greater the chance of death or more serious injury. By
    "encouraging" drivers to travel more slowly the police are preserving
    life.
    
    The last figure I remember for death on the roads is 5,000 per annum. I
    don't think murders are running at anything like that level.
    
    Andrew

Anyone else hear the news snippet on Capital Radio this morning along the
lines of:

	1000 motorists filmed/photographed speeding through a contra-flow
	section of the M11 - in 2 days !!!!


Cameras just take all the fun out of motoring.   :-}






TKS

    
    re .42
    
    A change of attitude is what the government is after. After hammering
    home the message (with success) on "drink driving" the next target is
    the "speed culture." It has been shown that reducing the average speed
    of traffic reduces death and injuries on the road - among all road users
     - that's you and me. Driving a car fast and well is fun but fun can and
    does turn to disaster. The faster you go the less time you have to react if
    something goes wrong - this is the problem with speed.
    
    Ian.

It's all very well trying to change the attitude of drivers, but
what about pedestrians?  There's ever more shocking campaigns to
hit the message home to drivers about the dangers of speeding,
but these are of limited use if there's no campaign run in parallel
to educate pedestrians of the potential dangers; it's years since
I last saw a `green cross code' type public information advert on
the telly.  Why?

Chris.

    I still think that the Return On Investment for all this expense on
    speeding is very poor compared to say, the ROI on the same amount of
    money spent on community policing, or detecting burglaries and
    suchlike...
    
    Laurie.

    Complete conjecture, but I would guess average road speeds and traffic
    levels have increased year on year (or certainly not decreased much),
    however accidents/fatalities have decreased. Why?
    
    I don't think anyone would argue that the higher the speed the better
    the chance of an accident, but that doesn't look at the overall picture
    of driving in the UK.
    
    Will millions spent on cameras and helicopters make any difference to
    accident statistics? 
    
    I live in a road that has a 20mph speed limit, humps (which are too low
    to be effective) and no-right-turn restrictions at either end. They are
    even talking of installing cameras! The real issue is that the road is
    used as a cut through. The responsible drivers respect the restrictions
    (but they weren't the problem) and the speeders have sprint races
    between the humps - no change! My road is microcosm of the UK. 
    Tackle the real issues not the symptoms.
    
    Rupert

    Which features would you put on the list of what makes us break the
    speed limit how would you rank them?
    
    I'll start the list:
    
    - low risk of getting caught and/or trivial penalty
    - showing off to someone
    - miscalculated the journey time and rushing to catch up 
    - curiosity, example: "Will it really do 130 mph?"
    - emergency
    - "laws are for other people to obey"
    - "I'm not going to be overtaken by any <name of car>!"

    re: 2140.50
    
    How 'bout a higher speed just making the drive less boring and thereby
    reducing the chance of falling asleep?  I quite often find that I've
    driven half the distance home and don't remember a thing about it.  Not
    asleep exactly, just in another place and driving on "automatic pilot"
    which is really quite dangerous.  At a higher speed, I would be forced
    to pay attention to the road.......
    
    					Brianzzzzzzzzzzzzz
    

                                                   
    How about, 30 years ago or so when the speed limits were set the 70,
    limit for motorways was jolly fast and very few cars could do it easily
    and comfortably, E types and A C Cobra's excepted. Now your average
    family saloon will easily do ~90 in comfort and safety and security
    features make it possible, advanced egineering more than anything
    has contributed to the decline in deaths.
    I'm not an advocate for speeding through built up areas (Having just
    become a daddy I'm somewhat surprised at the change in attitude to 
    this.) but on the Motorway 70 seems too low.
    
    As an example I would'nt like to have gone over 50 in my mums old Morris
    1300 whereas my Pug 205 will cruise all day at 80. 
    

    Several years ago, the main road through the Sophia Antipolis
    technology Park (Valbonne in DEC jargon), was enjoying a speed limit of
    60kph. OK, there were a few nasty crossroads with poor visibility, but
    between intersections one could easily and safely do 120kph, especially
    since we are talking of dual carriageway, etc ... Some people even saw
    me doing demos at 160kph, safely I mean.
    
    The nasty crossroads were regularly (once a day ?) causing accidents,
    some fatal, others light.
    
    Result: police was out with radar traps twice a week. At 60kph they
    could nail absolutely everyone and they did.
    
    Result of result: people were slowing down at radar spots. Nasty
    crossroads were still regularly causing accidents, as before.
    
    Recently, some 'dummy' decided to get rid of the nasty crossroads and
    to lift the speed limit to 90kph.
    
    Result: less accidents, no need for radar

    I very often drive from Brussels to Ipswich via Dover, a total distance
    of about 300 miles. I like to do it as quickly and safely as possible.
    That, and the fact that in my car (along with most modern cars), mile
    after mile at 70mph is mind-numbingly boring. Even 85-90 is more
    interesting; I simply have to concentrate more, it keeps me alert. As I
    drive a foreign-registered car, I don't give a stuff about cameras,
    but I watch carefully for the boys in blue, of whom there are far more
    than here in Yurrup.
    
    Laurie.

> mile after mile at 70mph is mind-numbingly boring. Even 85-90 is more
> interesting; I simply have to concentrate more, it keeps me alert.

I couldn't agree more.  Trying to drive along a long stretch of motorway such
as the M40 at a constant 70 has got to be one of the most tedious experiences
going, and I find that eventually, unless I really concentrate, I just get
bored and switch off.  I find that by raising my speed by a few mph I'm
aware of the need to be more alert and drive better as a result.  Obviously
there's a trade off with stopping distances, but I think that the improved
reaction times still outweigh this (although I doubt if the motorway pollis
will take the same view).

Chris.

BTW I don't apply the above argument to residential roads, and the person
    in front of me this morning who I estimate was doing 70 in a 30 limit
    outside a police station deserves everything they get!

    
    	Just out of interest, I thought you might like to know.......
    
    	Here in Bern, many residential areas are now limited to 30kmph,
    ie around 18mph. Virtually all main thoroughfares are limited to 50kmph
    (30mph), including stretches of dual-carriageway, although there are
    some stretches of 60kmph. Regular speed traps are set up with spot fines
    for anyone more than 3kmph over the limit (this usually means everyone!).
    The motorways in and around Bern are limited to 80kmph (50mph) to reduce
    pollution - apparently there is a significant reduction (50% maybe?) and
    given the large amounts of traffic in and around Bern (I guess equivalent
    to Cardiff 8-), it was decided to go green!
     
    JBG

re a few back on the Green Cross Code, the reason you haven't seen it is because
it was dropped. Unfortunately, like any "system", when it is taught to children,
they parrot it. Look right, look left, look right again and cross....oh dear.

    re .55, and Laurie.
    
    I don't buy this - if I drive faster I concentrate more. I might agree
    that it takes a little longer to drift into that state of "autopilot"
    which we have all experienced. I do not believe that the human brain
    says "Oh we're doing 75mph, this is lots more interesting", or even 80
    or 90.
    
    I suspect that this feeling is similar to the one the brain induces
    when slightly drunk. Many people state that they drive better after a
    couple of drinks. I think the evidence is conclusive that this is not
    the case.
    
    Andrew

Just as an aside ...

I've been able to bring down my speed a little and reduce the more assertive
/ agressive / interesting aspects of my driving by listening to audio books
while driving.

I feel that while listening to these books I'm less likely to let my blood
boil when somebody overtakes on the inside, drives 3 inches behind my back
bumper, etc.

If I'm listening to a book then I beleive it actually helps me concentrate
better on driving.  As the previous notes suggest I find it easy to switch off
if I'm trying to be a good boy by crawling along at a ( more-or-less ) legal
speed.  If I'm concentrating by listening to a book then I'll also have enough
concentration left over to safely control the car and get to where I want to go
without reacting to the prats on the road.

I also listen to audo books as I feel at least I'm now not wasting nearly 2
hours commuting.  It also introduces me to books and authors I wouldn't have
normally read.


Cheers,

Steven

    RE: Driving at 80+ on a motorway
    
    Ah gone are the days in my dads old Bedford van when as nippers we got
    excited as he overtook someone on a push bike on our way down to
    Cornwall on holiday! I must ask him the next time I speak to him if he
    found it difficult to concentrate on the 10 hour journey.
    
    Dave

    Let's suppose for a moment that 70mph is a safe speed on a
    well-maintained 3lane motorway in good conditions. 
    
    Now let's suppose it rains and the motorway gets wet and stopping
    distances double and visibility is crap. Or maybe it goes foggy.
    
    Why doesn't the speed limit COME DOWN when it's wet or foggy. Maybe
    70mph is just an adequate compromise. 
    
    These days if the weather is rough I tend to ignore the motorways
    because I got fed up of dickheads whizzing past at 70mph+ while I'm
    reluctantly doing 50 mph (any slower and I'd get a 50mph-limit HGV 3
    inches behind me). I suspect I'm in a minority though.

    In France I beleive it is the case that in wet conditions the speed
    limits are automatically reduced by approx 10-20 kph depending on what
    road type you are on, this all happens without a change in the signage.
    
    Neil

    
    	Good point J? I seem to remember that stretches of motorway in
    France (of possibly Germany) have such a system, ie. a normal spped
    limit and a slower limit for when it's raining / foggy etc.
    	It never ceases to amaze me how people seem to completely ignore
    the ambient conditions when driving. Here in Switzerland of course,
    snow is a common hazard. The roads, esspecially motorways, are promptly
    cleared, but during heavy snowstorms, when the individual lanes have
    completely different conditions, you still see people flying by at
    120kmph or more.
    	Last year I was crawling home at 60kmph, in a line of traffic, with
    the odd nutter trying to keep control as they sped down the outside
    lane. One such person (as it happened a woman but the blokes are the
    same) flys by in a Merc and 500 yards laters completely loses it trying
    to cross back into the inside lane, spin infront of everyone, smashes
    into the central barrier & finally into a bridge abutment. When we
    stopped (we have a car-phone), she's sitting in here car crying but
    otherwise ok. The Merc was a write-off but the saftely cage had clearly
    done its job.
    	I'm getting long winded but here comes the point..... I've since
    seen the same driver many times in a replacement (I assume!) Merc,
    flying along as usual. She hasn't learnt her lesson... and presumably
    the insurance paid. 
    
    	People never seem to learn that speed kills and you have to adjust
    your driving style to suit the prevailling conditions. Wish I knew what
    the solution was.....punitive fines? bans? ...etc
    
    JBG

    >I also listen to audo books as I feel at least I'm now not wasting 
    >nearly 2 hours commuting.
    
Re: .59
    
    Steve,
    
    	Do you buy or hire these tapes, from where and how much?
    
    Cheers
    Dave 

    Most libraries have a stock of audio books these days. Can't remember
    how much they charge though, a couple of quid I think.
    
    Andy.

Re: .64

� Do you buy or hire these tapes, from where and how much?

Well, my Dad very kindly takes them out of his local library, records them, and
then gives them to me to listen.  I currently have about 40-50 tapes which are
passed back and forth.

I have also bought some tapes but these are normally not very good as the
stories have normally been abridged down to two C90 audio tapes.  The ones you
can hire from your local library are anything up to 12 cassettes and are
normally complete.

The hiring price very from area to area but is normally very reasonable.

I have been reading a lot of P.G. Woodhouse, Dick Francis, and Wilbur Smith
recently.  I'm very impressed with Dick Francis.  Before I 'read' any of his
book I thought that I wouldn't be interested in books about horses, but the
horses are practically incidental to the plots.

I've also told my Dad to include books I normally wouldn't bother with, e.g.
Isaac Asimov, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, etc.  I've generally found that besides
the romantic twaddle, anything that has been recorded onto tape is normally good
quality.  It also give some variety !


Cheers,

Steven

    Err, is it legal for your Dad to record library cassettes?

    Steve,
    	Have you tried Jane Ayre ?
    

Re.61

>>>    reluctantly doing 50 mph (any slower and I'd get a 50mph-limit HGV 3
>>>    inches behind me). I suspect I'm in a minority though.


	One supposes that having an HGV 3 inches behind you means that you are
breaking the law by remaining in the 1st overtaking lane (middle) whilst not
overtaking - yes?  I can't imagine any other way of this happening.  If my
supposition is correct, then you are certainly NOT in a minority, the driving
lane (left hand one) is usually empty or nearly so when HGV 3s sit insde your
exhaust pipe!


Re.64

	Hi Dave, are you back again?  Or did you not leave in the end?

				Malcolm.

    RE -1
    
    Interestingly, if you add extra lanes, the middle lane crowd move
    right...
    
    I was on the M25 recently.  Lane 1 was empty.  Lane 2 had a few in it. 
    Lane 3 was chokka.  Lane 4 was the usual crowd of loonies...
    
    One exception to this is the BUM (Belfast Urban Motorway), which, when
    it was built over twenty years ago, was the widest in Europe with five
    lanes each side...  Basically, no-one knew what lane they were supposed
    to be in, so they wandered about all over the place.  I don't know if
    it's still like that.
    
    Richard
    

    Malcolm,
    
    I'm in the L.H. lane. I'm the kind of driver that likes a "contingency
    plan" in adverse conditions e.g. the hard shoulder. There is no
    "contingency plan" from the middle lane.
    
    Typically the HGV 3 inches behind me at 50mph+ is frustrated by an even
    bigger HGV in the middle lane doing exactly 2 mph more than the left
    hand lane, probably going up a long 1 in 100 hill or something difficult
    like that. I'm an easier target than the HGV in the middle, with space
    in front of me (2 second rule, etc, doubled in the wet) so I get
    the push.

    
    DON'T  tell everyone about the advantages of driving in lane 1 or they
    will all be doing it and thereby reducing our safety margin!
    
    The whole point about speed is that the difference in speed needs to be
    at managable levels. The difference in speed between a static
    pedestrian and a car doing 30 mph is - 30 mph. the difference in speed
    of a number of cars on a motorway doing 120 mph is - zero. The
    difference in the kenetic energy between these two simple examples is
    considerable. Straight line speed is not the problem. The problems come
    from the differences in speed caused by differences in attitude,
    perceptions and risk taking inherent in indivdual drivers for all sorts
    of reasons. 
    One thing is certain, whether you like it, or not, the trend from now
    on will be on speed reduction as a way of reducing the accident rate
    and pollution.
    
    Ian.
    
    

Re: .67

� Err, is it legal for your Dad to record library cassettes?

Well, I suppose legally I _might_ be on a sticky wicket, but my Dad doesn't
listen to them, It's not done for profit, I don't pass them onto anyone else,
and they're not kept permanently.


Steven

>    I was on the M25 recently.  Lane 1 was empty.  Lane 2 had a few in it. 
>    Lane 3 was chokka.  Lane 4 was the usual crowd of loonies...
    
    Maybe that's because most people have worked out that lane 1 on the
    M25 is in most part an extended slip road. ie, not the sort of place 
    that slow moving traffic wishes to risk getting boxed into.
    
    Malcolm

	Hello Malcolm, this is Malcolm.

    re.74
    
    Isn't that the justification for sitting in the middle on 3-laners?
    
    Richard
    

	Not at all justifiable when there is miles between each junction though,
as in the case of virtually all of our three lane Motorways and most of the four
lane ones!
				Malcolm.

    
    Fewer people die on motorways than on any other type of road.
    Where will the Sky traps be? On motorways. This is not an
    argument about saving lives. It's simple revenue generation
    and a good conviction rate.
    
    Defies logic.

    re .77
    
    I think you'll find that the earlier noter was talking about the M25
    where, of course, what you said just isn't true. Friends who've had to
    commute via the M25 have told me that there is a section where the
    junctions come so thick and fast and the traffic in lanes 2, 3 etc is
    so bad that the smart thing to do is to use lane 1 as a slip road. They
    actually come off the motorway and come back on again thereby making
    much better progress than those who stay on.
    
    Brian

    The ROI I was talking about wasn't a financial one.
    
    Laurie.

    
    Re .last
    
    Agreed. I was trying (and failing) to make the distinction between
    lives and $$$.