fuel guage

[RogerS]

.... only then will viable alternatives be seriously developed.

Lots of those, IMHO, in other areas. For example, drugs. Make them free-issue and decriminalise them. Those that are currently taking drugs will not stop (vast majority won't). Agreed that there will be a very small increase in numbers perhaps who will now take them as a result of this policy BUT the nett result to society is huge. Massive reduction in petty crime, assault, burglary, muggings etc that occur as a result of addicts having to pay high prices for drugs.

Massive reduction in insurance claims. Massive reduction in hospital costs as a result of injuries (ofvictims). Take a large amount of this money saved and invest in more opportunities for rehabilitation.

Only people who lose out are the drug barons/dealers

 

[Gill]

You're singing my song Roger .

Okay, we've moved off topic again; forgive us [-o< .

Gill

 

[CHJ]

[quote...snip..Take a large amount of this money saved and invest in more opportunities for rehabilitation. ...snip..

I sometimes even question the necessity for the this action, (rehabilitation) the disproportional effort and expenditure that is put into helping individuals who are in the main suffering from a self inflicted injury be it from drugs (be it via chemical/tobacco/alcohol etc.)
There are millions of human beings on this planet who daily do their best on a self help basis to survive who would make far better use of any modern society surplus resources.

I say this having lost several close members of my family from tobacco related illness (they did come from an era before danger was recognized and deserved help) but currently watching another die slowly over a 3 year period who is still smoking heavily.

Off topic? just me putting the world to rights I'm afraid, please excuse.

 

[RogerS]

Chas, actually I'm with you on this but, fearing the PC lobby, wasn't as brave as you in stating the obvious.

Ultimately we are responsible for our own actions and there are plenty of people who have had a bad start in life/poor parenting/bad influences etc etc etc and yet are able to rise above these. So why can't the rest?

 

[Les Mahon]

Chas / Roger / Gill

I'm not from the PC lobby by any stretch, but I see some fundemental flaws in that way of thinking, excluding tobacco all other addictions mentioned are considered a medical condition and recogised as such by the medical council - that are categosised the same as diabetes.

just a couple of points:

I sometimes even question the necessity for the this action, (rehabilitation) the disproportional effort and expenditure that is put into helping individuals who are in the main suffering from a self inflicted injury be it from drugs (be it via chemical/tobacco/alcohol etc.)

The only known solution to addiction is 12 step programs, which by their nature cost nothing, there is no actual cure to addiction, it is a fatal disease.

Massive reduction in petty crime, assault, burglary, muggings etc that occur as a result of addicts having to pay high prices for drugs.

Unlikly as addicts tend to be unable to function in society hence will still turn to crime to finance there addiction - I have often heard this point of view, but usually linked to "drug" addiction, in fact the most financially ruining addiction is gambling.

Addiction affects all levels of society, it is seen as being an underpriviliged / deprived areas problem only because addicts from those areas turn to crime to fund their addiction, rich addicts can afford to "get away with it" untill the addiction kills them.

I'm not trying to get on a soapbox here, just putting accross some alternative view on a subject very close to my heart - and also way off topic.

Les
BTW the reason I specific excluded tobacco was because I am a smoker and did not want to hypocritical!

 

[beech1948]

Hi,
I agree with those who say that Taxation of fuel will not assist the resolution of the problems.

Governments simply exist in a way that major corporations do. Detached from the majority and doing whatever they think they need to do. I won't quote examples here because I do not want to politicise the thread. However, Governments do not exist to benefit me or you directly. They are like the utilities which continue to raise costs, like local authorities which raise costs.

Others have said that we should drive more slowly, less competitively etc etc.

It's amusing to hear. A caring government would insist that all vehicles allowed onto its roads would automatically observe the countries set speed limits. As much for energy conservation as the protection of life. yet I am permitted to buy a car easily able to exceed the speed limit by 100% without any check or hindrance. Did the government then give me permission to speed and waste fuel/energy...I think so.

At least as an unintended side effect of a lack of governmental thought or control.

 

[StevieB]

Goodness beech, are you really saying that you would like the government to directly control your speed at all times, and your rate of acceleration :shock: There are only 2 ways to do this, either allow only the sale of vehicles that cannot exceed government set limits, or allow the sale of anything but fit them with a data monitor to allow detection of breaking government set limits. Either way seems a little Orwellian to me. Sadly its not speed that kills, but rather the inappropriate use of speed - a message both governments and safety campaigners continually ignore. 70mph on a motorway in heavy snow or rain is legal but not advisable!

This thread seems to be evolving nicely from its original topic, and just shying away from politics, but lets not get started on speed cameras or that might change :twisted:

Steve

 

[Alf]

Goodness beech, are you really saying that you would like the government to directly control your speed at all times...

No plans yet, but they've certainly been looking into it... :?

 

[beech1948]

Stevie,
I'm not making any point just saying that if you have speed limits then there is a strange dicotomy whereby you can actually exceed that by any amount you wish....odd of government to install speed limits but not the means to enforce it even though it is possible.

Orwellian...who cares. My point is only that it is strange to forbid a thing and then permit it at the same time.

eg you have my permission to go buy a car able to do 165 mph but I will not restrict you in getting to that speed, I will take revenue from you if caught, I will set arbitrary limits which I try to enforce for the supposed sake of life and limb but I will not prevent you from doing it.

Its not even about freedom of choice or just fredom its about a lack of consistency and logic and application.

SOoooooooooo I could believe that the government has given me permission to travel at 165mph because it is legally permissible to buy and use the gadget which can do this.



Now what is that all about do you think. Joined up Government.

 

[beech1948]

Alf,

My guess is that in another 20 years or so, when I am 77, all cars will have a limiter as to speed or at the least all major motorways, roads into and out of large population zones will be speed controlled.

In 75 years we will probably have a different power source. The return of steam maybe or something new. At least let us hope it is ecologically sound...energy returned to water after consumption.

Individual cars will travel on small scale rail like track at upto but not more than 70 mph on all major routes but not on local routes.

Car speed in cities will still be below 10 mph due to congestion because government have not learnt to spread jobs, offices and work across the country fairly.

The south east will sink below the sea under the weight of concrete and housing. The south west will then be a mountainous country.

ha!!!!!!

 

[beech1948]

StevieB,

Sorry but you are wrong... in fact dead wrong...speed kills. Inappropriate use of speed kills faster is all.

 

[RogerS]

Mmmm..interesting point, Beech...so if you follow your logic then cars should only be sold in this country with speed limiters...but then what do I do when I want to take my car onto the track?

Totally agree that it's not speed for speeds sake..but inappropriate use of speed...wrong place, wrong time, wrong speed. Many more other dangerous activites IMHO such as tailgating but I've never heard of anyone being done for this....falls into the 'too hard' category maybe?

I know that they tried a scheme in France when one of the autoroutes was opened up (main reason being to take heavy goods traffic off the other roads/towns/villages). On this particular autoroute, from the toll gates they were able to track the time taken between toll gates and since the vehicle had travelled a known distance in that time, speed was easily calculated and a ticket simply issued by computer..not a human or frog leg in sight. Truckers rebelled by reverting back to driving through the towns and villages and so they dropped the scheme.

 

[beech1948]

Hi Roger,

The solution to the problem is that all vehicles should be fitted with speed limiters which are sensitive to the speed limit being imposed and that vehicles should be sold with the control sealed inside somewhere.

To your problem of using your car on a race track then some form of official removal and resetting of the limiter should be possible so that you can race. I have no problem with your right to enjoy yourself or to maim, kill or damage yourself or others whilst you all pursue private enjoyment.

The French story is quite interesting. I deduce that the problem was that trucks were still controlled by humans and not by a restrictor so that any scheme which thwarts only individuals but not all people equally was bound to fail. Infact any scheme which permits human judgement to decide what speed to travel at is doomed to failure. We will all try to travel as fast as we think we can get away with. In the French case a speed restrictor set at the motorway maximum(?62mph in France) would prevent the arguement of speed fines being appropriate.

 

[Jake]

We will all try to travel as fast as we think we can get away with. In the French case a speed restrictor set at the motorway maximum(?62mph in France) would prevent the arguement of speed fines being appropriate.

You'd need to link it to a rain sensor. 80mph in the dry, 62ish in the wet. I think. You still get just as many people dying on motorways. Stupid drivers are the real danger, not necessarily fast ones.

 

[Guest]

I know. Why don't we get a man to walk in front of cars with a red flag?

 

[Midnight]

No plans yet, but they've certainly been looking into it...

I heard on the radio the other week that HMG are looking closely into a varient of that... GPS trackers to assist in calculating road tolls... wouldn't take too much tweaking to add a facility to detect breaking speed limits...

I choked when they said the motorist would be expected to stump up the cost of the "black box"...

 

[beech1948]

No plans yet, but they've certainly been looking into it...

I heard on the radio the other week that HMG are looking closely into a varient of that... GPS trackers to assist in calculating road tolls... wouldn't take too much tweaking to add a facility to detect breaking speed limits...

I choked when they said the motorist would be expected to stump up the cost of the "black box"...

 

[CHJ]

I was once told by relatives in Western Australia travelling some 400 miles along a newly upgraded road through Geralton and down to Margaret River that they were policed and subsequently fined if not in compliance for speeding, by noting time of entering the route and leaving it. 'Speeding' being the offence not 'to short a journey time' which would have promoted safety.

Everybody soon overcame the boredom of travelling at the monotonous sleep inducing speed by going like h**l for a fair distance and then stopping for a coffee break, it certainly reduced the accident rate but the conclusion was that it was more to do with driver fatigue reduction than the speed of travel.

I can see that satellite monitoring could enforce maximum speed compliance, but where do you stop in dictating the movement of the vehicle, will we see satellite monitoring of HGV hours enforcing vehicle shutdown if not in compliance? enforced journey breaks on your trip to scotland/cornwall*, or the requirement of alternate driver PIN entry to allow vehicle progress? (*although M5 traffic volumes do a good imitation of this most holiday periods)

None of these measures tackle the silly person who refuses to drive within the limits of the road conditions or with due thought for other road users.

I try hard to comply but admit to making mistakes/misjudgements, I only hope that I do not do it at the same time as someone else.

 

[StevieB]

Beech wrote:

StevieB,

Sorry but you are wrong... in fact dead wrong...speed kills. Inappropriate use of speed kills faster is all.

Looks like we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one Beech :wink: I stand by my comment.

The German Autobahn are some of the safest roads in Germany yet they have no speed limits. If your claim that speed alone kills, why is it not in the top 5 reasons for fatality in Road Traffic Accidents from the governments own official figures? Sure, I am happy to agree that speed is certainly a contributing factor, just that its focus as the be all and end all of bad driving is incorrect. Even a chief constable agrees with this:
[url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/ne...w.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... ncam07.xml
[/url]
Does your claim 'the government allows me to buy it so must condone it' argument apply to other items? The government allows me to buy alcohol, it allows me to buy cigarettes, it allows me to buy all the ingredients to make explosives. Does it therfore condone lung cancer, alcoholism and blowing things up?

Apologies, this is not a rant or personal attack - just something that I feel is badly reported and handled by the government. I ride a motorbike through London and M25 rush hour traffic daily, usually at speeds less than 30mph due to built up traffic. Bad driving and impatience causes far more accidents and fatalities than speed does. Until speed cameras (sorry, safety cameras) can spot tailgating, lane changing without indicating, and people doing the myriad of things they do while trying to drive at the same time (including phoning, texting, reading the paper, and even playing a computer game!) then these are far more serious offences than doing 75mph on the motorway :shock:

Steve.

Edited 1 time to include url. the comment about accident causes and speed not being in the top 5 reasons was taken from a big report at motorcyclenews.com. Unfortunately I cant find the report now they have revamped their site so cannot post a link at present :roll: .

 

[Gill]

Bad driving and impatience causes far more accidents and fatalities than speed does.

Would it not be accurate to say that bad driving causes practically all accidents?

It strikes me as logical that a bad driver who hits another vehicle at 20 mph will inflict less damage than a bad driver who hits another vehicle at 120 mph. That's why it must be true that bad drivers cause accidents but speed kills.

We'll never be able to outlaw bad drivers or eliminate non-attributable failures, but we can all do something to curtail our speed. It's the prospect of having a puncture (or similar mechanical failure) at high speed that makes me keep my speed down.

Gill