Overtaking is not dangerous.
Driving your vehicle in a manner where you cannot be sure that you can avoid a collision is dangerous.
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Speed limiters in cars
- Thread starter philthetube
- Start date
- Status
Overtaking is not dangerous.
Driving your vehicle in a manner where you cannot be sure that you can avoid a collision is dangerous.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
It is rather. It is worth considering that doing a lot of miles can make you complacent and arrogant and thus a worse driver than one who does moderate mileage. This is born out by the fact that taxi drivers - people who drive long hours - are observably the worst drivers on the road.
Your second sentence says that all driving is dangerous; and contradicts your first.
Overtaking on a single carriageway is inherently dangerous because you cannot be sure that the road ahead will remain clear whilst you are on the "wrong" side of the road.
Last edited:
Drivers who choose to be ‘bad’ drivers are far less scary than those who can’t help it.
Of course you can - you know how long the move will make and ensure that you can see far enough to be sure that distance will be clear! (You are actually arguing that speed limiters would be dangerous there btw!).
But that's got nothing to do with age.
Though of course that's not a safety critical system (as one presumes that you're still in full control of the car and indeed responsible for observing and obeying all speed restrictions) and is simply a driver assistance device. Therefore it doesn't require the absolute level of precision that an autonomous vehicle would require.
On the subject though there was actually an interesting video recently on YouTube showing off a service in Arizona which is already using driverless cars to provide taxi services in their city:
Now early on he makes the concession that the technology is not going to work, at least yet, in countries where there are dodgy roads and/or dodgy driving standards but equally the technology is functional. Autonomous cars are driving around as we speak in a city in Arizona! He also talks about an issue which I think is starting to creep that it is perhaps more dangerous to be toying with semi-automation like we seen in some cars now (Tesla perhaps the most obvious example) as that creates a situation where you have a car which is basically self-driving but is not actually able to do so without direct human supervision yet the human ends up not supervising it properly because they get used to it driving itself. Far better to have the clear delineation of either the car drives itself and does not need human interventional at all or the human is driving. Should also be noted that Waymo sponsored the video but I trust that channel enough that he wouldn't have agreed to do the video if Waymo were just going to make stuff up and he was expected to lie.
The whole thing is an interesting subject and I do have to wonder if perhaps it's closer than we might imagine. Obvious in the UK the concept is harder to implement. The example in the video seems to be a classic US style city with nice big wide roads on a lovely grid layout with spacious car parking, etc etc. Here in the UK few if any of our cities benefit from such car friendly designs (and that's no bad thing!). But our motorways and major A roads are of a high standard (stop sniggering in the back) so I wonder if we're that far away from being able to manually drive to say Junction 5 of the M1 and then tell the car: "Take me to Junction 27" and the car just drives fully autonomously along the M1?
All very interesting stuff!
There have been innumerable accidents caused by vehicles pulling out of concealed side roads and entries into the path of an overtaking vehicle whose driver has not bothered to look left before pulling out.
And, yes , I am opposed to limiters for that reason among others. There is far too much emphasis on speed limits by road-safety experts. Safe speed varies with location, time of day and weather. It may be safe to drive at twice the speed limit in a super-car on a motorway; it may be dangerous to drive at half the speed limit in a small family car outside a school.
You mention "dodgy roads and/or dodgy driving standards" in the context of there being autonomous cars already in use in the US. Whilst there are areas in the US where driving is generally quite tame and respectful, no doubt made easier by the roads there having a considerable amount of land take, but there is plenty of very poor driving - especially away from busy metropolitan areas where driving is more employment functional that optional/leisure based. Not only can driving standards be poor in their opwn right, but also there are many areas where there is scant regard for any legal obligatons on road users including the safety condition of vehicles and the effects of alcohol when driving. Even an autonomous car doesn't always ensure that brakes, suspension, tyres and lights are in a safe condition.
Then there's pedestrians, - generally, the US regards roads for vehicles only and injured pedestrians have virtually no defence if they aren't crossing at a place specifically sanctioned for that, indeed, daring to walk on the carriageway can result in prosecution for jaywalking. Such is the US's devotion to motor vehicles, so hardly comparable to the UK or much of Western Europe.
Yes, hence why I didn't say: "We should roll this technology out everywhere immediately". It clearly has some way to go in development terms before such a thing is possible, if it ever is possible. But equally let's not pretend that the technology doesn't exist or isn't mature enough yet to be used. Because it quite clearly is even if it isn't yet suitable for use everywhere.
Yes you can. If you can see the road is clear for sufficient distance to complete the overtaking manoeuvre, and you know that there are no side roads joining
In which case the overtaking driver could not be sure, as there was a side road joining.
My post was more about your comparison between US roads that appeared to be:
as opposed to:
Apart from the word 'nice' in the first quote, I agree with you, however the position of pedestrians is far more significant that some assume. Here in the UK, pedestrians have the right to use the whole of the public highway (i.e. both pavements and carriageway)* - clearly it is in the pedestrian's own interest to take all reasonable precautions when near moving traffic!
One of the major issues of autonomous vehicles is the legal responsibility of the driver/keeper, manufacturer and maintainer in the event of the vehicle's intelligence failing to avoid a pedestrian resulting in injury/death. Software (and to a lesser extent hardware) failure is a recognised matter in law but with conventional driver/vehicle interaction even modern automation electronics rarely is a prime cause of incidents, where the actions of an experienced driver can usually avert such an event. In the US, as I commented above, the pedestrian's rights are diminished if they are in the vehicle's domain, which of course much more legally convenient. There have been various incidents involving autonomous vehicles but the first (and as far as I know only) collision with a pedestrian was the death of Elaine Herzberg in Tempe Arizona. There were a number of factors in the event that contributed to Ms Herzberg's death including the car travelling faster than the limit for the road, the poorly lit road, the different surface (brick) that was part of the provisions to modify traffic flows if one of the adjacent rive bridges was closed, but the main issue was that the software had taken no action for about 5 seconds despite having detected the pedestrian, and the 'back-up' driver was watching 'The Voice' a tv show on her mobile where in that time she could have taken avoiding action. Meanwhile the liability has not been resolved yet Uber has just rolled on testing it's autonomous programmein all the other test states except Arizona.
* except "Special roads including Motorways" as defined in law.
Personally, I only overtake motor vehicles on 2 lane single carriageways if I am very familiar with the road, and so know that this is not going to be an issue, so yes, it is possible to be pretty much sure that the road is going to be clear for the duration of the manoeuvre.
I can just imagine joggers’ behaviour once they realise the cars can’t be aggressive - big long queue as they all trundle along behind the jogger insisting on staying in the road!
Presumably the computers will be programmed to be really cautious so they won’t ever overtake cyclists on the back roads either.
As for once kids and youth realise they can pretend to walk out and cause emergency braking that will scare the hell out of the dozing/reading ‘driver’.
Presumably the computers will be programmed to be really cautious so they won’t ever overtake cyclists on the back roads either.
As for once kids and youth realise they can pretend to walk out and cause emergency braking that will scare the hell out of the dozing/reading ‘driver’.
Yup. If a concerted campaign was to be launched by other road users, it could deter most drivers letting the autonomous car make decisions.
philthetube
Established Member
- Joined
- 5 Jan 2016
- Messages
- 3,762
Have you never driven along a road looking for a side road which you have only found when fairly close to it, certainly far closed than would be safe if you were doing a decent overtaking speed, overtaking is far more dangerous than not.
A bigger danger is people coming from abroad to live here with a licence issued by their originating country. Some driving tests are far easier than UK tests, so some immigrants driving skills are woeful. DVLA should be more picky about which foreign licences are allowed to be exchanged for UK licences.
trainmania100
Established Member
Wait are you saying I can do 79 on a motorway with out getting find?
SargeNpton
Established Member
- Joined
- 19 Nov 2018
- Messages
- 1,319
Depends on the circumstances.
It used to be the case that most county Police forces wouldn't bother you for less than 80mph on a clear motorway as long as there were no other aggravating factors. These days, it depends on what the speed cameras are set to.
I think that speedometers on private vehicles have to be accurate to within 10% of the actual speed, so if you are actually doing 70mph your speedo could show anything between 63-77mph. As most overestimate, if your's shows 79mph then it's likely that you are doing a bit less than that.
trainmania100
Established Member
I was on the M25 yesterday, speed cameras every few miles, can see the lines on the road and the yellow smart cameras on the gantries at the side, people shooting through well over 70.
Made me wonder whether the cameras don't work, or they're using a company / hire car and think they get away with it
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
There is nominally guidance only to pursue speed enforcement on a "10% + 2mph" basis which for a 70 limit is 79mph. Your speedo will also read over a bit (as it's illegal to read under), you can see your actual speed by using GPS.
However, forces are not mandated to follow this and still can do you for 70.000001mph if they want. Local rumour round here tended to be that Northamptonshire didn't use 10% + 2mph but decided on a case by case basis what, if any, leeway to give.
Speedometers must never under-read. Comparing to a GPS can be informative. If you can find a straight road where you can do a steady speed.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Generally they over-read by about 5-10%, so typically if you think you got away with doing 80, you more likely got away with doing 75-76 or so. Pretty sure an indicated 80 on my Kuga is an actual 76 by GPS (I won't say which country I found that out in, for the benefit of the tape
), and an indicated 73 is pretty much dead on 70 (and is what I set my cruise control to through smart motorways as a result).
bramling
Veteran Member
That's a massive can of worms opened! One can construct a perfectly reasoned argument to say that *any* overtaking move on a single-carriageway road involves more risk than not doing it, that level of added risk varying of course according to how competent the overtaking driver is.
I'd certainly subscribe to the view that overtaking on single-carriageway roads should certainly be something we should endeavour to minimise, one way of doing that is of course for people not to drive unreasonably slowly causing cars behind to want to pass.
I have heard it said that motorway cameras tend to be set quite high, for the simple reason that it creates too much admin if they catch too many people, so they concentrate on the worst offences. This may have changed over time with technological enhancements, or may have been an urban myth in the first place.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
This was actually the whole basis behind two recent changes with regard to single carriageways - the increase (in England) of the national speed limit for lorries from 40 to 50mph, and the reduction in the limit on many such roads (but not on a blanket basis) to 50mph. These two together near enough remove any need to overtake on single carriageways (give or take cyclists, tractors and Sunday drivers*), which if executed properly isn't dangerous, but does pose the greatest risk of an error of judgement causing an accident with a very high (potentially 120mph+) closing speed, and thus a very serious one likely to result in multiple fatalities.
The increase from 50 to 60 in motorway roadworks had a similar basis in part - to stop overtaking of cars sticking to the 50 by lorries not doing! The higher speed has been made adequately safe for workers by replacing the usual cones with concrete barriers designed to deflect an errant vehicle back into the running lane (that's what the curve at the bottom is for).
Even without the drop in limit, most people will happily sit at 50 behind a lorry, but not 40.
* Which goes back to your point - it is true that "it is not a target, it is a limit", but equally "failure to make progress" is a driving test fault, and so people should drive at a safe speed for the conditions (accepting that judgement on that will vary a bit), and not say at 30mph in a 60mph limit on a main road, unless there are other reasons for that speed to be sensible e.g. fog or flooding/heavy rain. Because frustration causes accidents - it shouldn't, but it does, and road safety has to take into account what people do, not just what they should do.
Last edited:
bramling
Veteran Member
The latter point is interesting. Private hire drivers for sure can be horrific, however stuff like London black cabs I'd say most are fairly competent. Some have terrible attitude for sure, but when it comes to safety I'd say they're not the worst by a long way.
I always take the view that the speed limit should really be a target, on the proviso there isn't a good reason for a lower speed (such as poor conditions). Certainly on the railway a driver would be flagged up on a comp assurance assessment if they were driving slowly for no reason.
I was reading somewhere recently there has been some clamour to reduce motorway speed limits to 60 mph during conditions of heavy rainfall. I tend to disagree with that sort of thing, as these decisions really are left to judgement. If people don't have the right judgement then they shouldn't be on the road in the first place. But of course emotion rules - "my car is my lifeline" stuff means there would never be a sensible debate on that score.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
In reality that debate probably won't be necessary, because by the time this has been faffed about with for long enough almost all motorways will be smart motorways, and so the control room can just drop the limit if they see potentially dangerous conditions (e.g. heavy rain) on the CCTV.
bramling
Veteran Member
You're probably right that this what will happen, however for me this is a pretty terrible "solution". What happens when someone encounters standing water which the control room hadn't seen?
In this country, speed limits don't tend to adjust for local road conditions - e.g. it is rare to have a speed limit drop at a sharp bend, instead it is left to drivers to read the road. I think this would fit very much into that - somebody doing 70mph through standing water is probably 'driving without due care and attention' even if they are not breaking the speed limit. I can see the logic of using variable speed limit in these situations on motorways, if it is apparent that drivers aren't taking appropriate action.
Remember the EU are intent on introducing "intelligent" speed limiters on all new cars in 2022 and I suspect the UK will follow suit to keep life simple.
I assume such a system would be reliant on GPS, basic sat-nav to determine direction of travel, location and therefore which road you are on plus the camera systems many new cars have to 'read' roadsigns as they are passed.
If that happens then it won't take many new cars on the road equipped with this technology to effectively force all other cars to slow down.
I have no doubt that some will see this as a challenge to maintain their need to speed but generally you can only go as fast as the car in front of you unless you're particularly Darwinian.
I assume such a system would be reliant on GPS, basic sat-nav to determine direction of travel, location and therefore which road you are on plus the camera systems many new cars have to 'read' roadsigns as they are passed.
If that happens then it won't take many new cars on the road equipped with this technology to effectively force all other cars to slow down.
I have no doubt that some will see this as a challenge to maintain their need to speed but generally you can only go as fast as the car in front of you unless you're particularly Darwinian.
They do work, as Mrs BR will testify.
I can think of several circumstances where overtaking is less risky than not, however I do agree with the principle that *most* overtaking on two lane single carriageway roads involves more risk than not doing so. However having more risk does not mean it is dangerous.
When speed limits through motorway roadworks were first enforced by average speed cameras, the speed limit was 40. That only lasted a few years as I think it was shown to be higher risk than 50!
Limiters will happen. However they will be easily disabled by the driver (pushing a button).
trainmania100
Established Member
Personally I wouldn't mind a speed limiter in my car, I live in an area where community speed watch and operation crackdown is a joke. Constantly seeing yellow officers in stupid places like hiding on downhill curves and catching people out when gravity is the primary offender.
Do speed limiters apply the brakes if you go over, ie on a downhill, or are they like class 377s and only stop you accelerating over the limit
Do speed limiters apply the brakes if you go over, ie on a downhill, or are they like class 377s and only stop you accelerating over the limit
- Status