Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How Britain built some of the world’s safest roads

ourworldindata.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 269 posts

Re: How Britain built some of the world’s safest roads

#191

Post by gambiting »

andrepd wrote: post #126
gambiting wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've lived in the UK for over 15 years now and I still can't get over people's general allergy for using indicators. And I know the test and training specifically tell you that you must use indicators when changing lanes and turning, but if I had a penny for every time I see someone on the motorway changing lanes without indicating I'd make a very good middle class salary from that alone. But yes, other than this peo…

30mph is an unsafe speed for towns or anywhere where cars coexist with pedestrians or bikes.

100% agreed.

Re: How Britain built some of the world’s safest roads

#192

Post by alt227 »

lmm wrote: post #146
tialaramex wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're not supposed to drive 60mph on those tiny roads. Why are they 60mph? Well, the symbol they display doesn't say 60mph, it's basically just a slash symbol - it should be read "National Limit Applies" or perhaps "Derestricted" and it so happens that the law in the UK says that if there's no other rule in place that limit is 60mph and on these tiny roads nobody has put in place a more specific limit so that's the…

> You're not supposed to drive 60mph on those tiny roads. You are supposed to drive 60mph where appropriate, e.g. on straight stretches with good visibility and no junctions. It's very possible to fail your driving test for not going fast enough on a single carriageway.

Not sure why you are being downvoted, you are completely correct. Have an upvote.

Re: How Britain built some of the world’s safest roads

#193

Post by hinkley »

toast0 wrote: post #81
iainmerrick wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, I really have a hard time understanding that trend. More than just the overall sizes of the cars (and they are big) it's those very high, flat fronts. That surely must be bad for visibility and bad for fuel efficiency at speed. I can only imagine people like that style because it looks more like a car and less like a minivan, which is what those enormous SUVs really are.

The market (either producers or consumers or both) don't seem to care about visibility. If you sit in a 20 year old car vs a brand new car, visibility is clearly better in the 20 year old car; if you go back to a 40 year car, it's even better. I've got an 81 VW Vanagon, the visibility is really good: cabover [1] means there's no hood in front, clear vertical windows and no safety features makes it easy to see out in…

The visibility is great and the side impact survivability is roughly equal to that of a claymore mine operated by an expert. Who knows you cheated on his sister.

The IIHS didn’t even start side impact ratings until 2003, which is a lot more recent than I would have ever guessed.

Re: How Britain built some of the world’s safest roads

#194

Post by potato3732842 »

zdragnar wrote: post #108
tialaramex wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're not supposed to drive 60mph on those tiny roads. Why are they 60mph? Well, the symbol they display doesn't say 60mph, it's basically just a slash symbol - it should be read "National Limit Applies" or perhaps "Derestricted" and it so happens that the law in the UK says that if there's no other rule in place that limit is 60mph and on these tiny roads nobody has put in place a more specific limit so that's the…

The same is true in the US. Most (all?) states have state-wide speed limit "defaults" for town/city roads (i.e. 25 mph), highways and rural roads (i.e. 55 mph) and freeways (i.e. 70mph). Instead of having a speed limit sign after each and every intersection, they're placed periodically. If you enter a road and there's no sign, that's the speed limit. If there's a different speed limit than the default, and you cross…

The difference is that in the US the defaults are jokes nobody abides by whereas in the UK they are, in some cases, numbers the "perhaps not lowest but normal person on a normal day" denominator will not find themselves wanting to exceed in basically every location where they apply.

Re: How Britain built some of the world’s safest roads

#195

Post by everfrustrated »

4ndrewl wrote: post #99
tialaramex wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're not supposed to drive 60mph on those tiny roads. Why are they 60mph? Well, the symbol they display doesn't say 60mph, it's basically just a slash symbol - it should be read "National Limit Applies" or perhaps "Derestricted" and it so happens that the law in the UK says that if there's no other rule in place that limit is 60mph and on these tiny roads nobody has put in place a more specific limit so that's the…

aka "it's a speed limit, not a target"

Begs the question why the symbol for a limit is in the (literal) shape of a target.

Re: How Britain built some of the world’s safest roads

#196

Post by potato3732842 »

jonplackett wrote: post #121
tialaramex wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're not supposed to drive 60mph on those tiny roads. Why are they 60mph? Well, the symbol they display doesn't say 60mph, it's basically just a slash symbol - it should be read "National Limit Applies" or perhaps "Derestricted" and it so happens that the law in the UK says that if there's no other rule in place that limit is 60mph and on these tiny roads nobody has put in place a more specific limit so that's the…

I hate driving on these roads. I just refuse to drive a speed where I can’t stop if there’s someone in the road on a blind corner - call me an idiot and beep your horn at me if you want.

On paper that's perfectly fine.

In practice there seems to be a ton of correlation between people who say things like that and people who think their Fiat 500 stops like a garbage truck.

Re: How Britain built some of the world’s safest roads

#197

Post by hnlmorg »

cjrp wrote: post #181
hnlmorg wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s equally possibly to fail for going too fast while still under the speed limit. What you’re supposed to do is drive at a speed that gives you chance to react to dangers given your visibility and road surface conditions. For country roads, they’re typically winding rather than straight. So more often than not, that means you shouldn’t be travelling much past 30mph. But you are right that straight stretches do exis…

> What you’re supposed to do is drive at a speed that gives you chance to react to dangers given your visibility and road surface conditions. Indeed, I always think of my instructor's words "can you stop within the distance you can see". As that distance decreases, you should be slowing down; potentially there's a cyclist or horse right around the corner.

There’s an old guy that walks round the small country lanes at rush hour where I live. He wears a hi vis jacket but that doesn’t do much when you have trees and hedges blocking visibility.

I’m constantly amazed that some idiot hasn’t hit him.

Re: How Britain built some of the world’s safest roads

#198

Post by robertlagrant »

silisili wrote: post #172
philjohn wrote: post #48

Our driving test standards are also high, having spoken with US colleagues, much higher than state-side (although I imagine that varies from state to state). The theory test you must pass before taking your practical also now includes a hazard perception test - you are shown multiple videos and must click when you first perceive a hazard - the earlier you click after the hazard presents the higher your score - but if…

I live in the US in a town with particularly bad drivers. I know I know, everyone's area has the worst drivers. But I've lived in dozen cities across the US so have some frame of reference. The sad thing is, it's a small town with what -should- be little traffic. It's one of those places there will only be 2 other cars in sight, but they're driving side by side and 10 under the speed limit. And for some reason, every…

Wow - if it's a driving test that lets you drive anywhere in the States, then you'd think it'd be a national standard with set manoeuvres and situations to cover.

Re: How Britain built some of the world’s safest roads

#199

Post by robertlagrant »

stevekemp wrote: post #166
dotwaffle wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> also now includes a hazard perception test I took my test nearly 25 years ago, and this was present then -- for the avoidance of doubt, the UK test has always been very thorough, though not quite as thorough as those in places like Finland where apparently they have skid pans and similar!

Makes sense that Finland has such things though, when the roads are covered in snow and ice for a lot of the year. Though this year we did good in our capital: "Helsinki has not recorded a single traffic fatality in the past 12 months, city and police officials confirmed this week."

Well done Helsinki! Unless there's a massive problem with police recording practices.

Re: How Britain built some of the world’s safest roads

#200

Post by closewith »

hdgvhicv wrote: post #177
closewith wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah. I do think 15mi/h or 24km/h is appropriate speed for that road if you want it to be usable by vulnerable road users. I just wondered what hdgvhicv considered appropriate.

50-60 is fine on that road, indeed given the traffic and sight lines it’s far better than the majority of roads, far safer than 20 in a typical town. That you think 15mph is appropiate tells me you need to hand back your license.

> 50-60 is fine on that road, indeed given the traffic and sight lines it’s far better than the majority of roads,

Well, given its current speed limit is 60mi/h and its current situation, both in terms of road safety and use by vulnerable road users, is abysmal, I think it's safe to safe you're incorrect.

A competent driver should be able to navigate that road at 60 or 80 km/h if it was a closed or private road, but we now have ample research that road speed limits affect motor vehicle speed, and motor vehicle speed is the number one factor in:

* road traffic accidents,

* road traffic deaths,

* road traffic injuries,

* deaths and injuries of vulnerable road users,

* and road use by vulnerable road users,

* overtaking speed.

So 60 km/h is a safe speed only if you close the road to non-motor traffic (and even then that will encourage speeding, leading to more accidents and deaths).

> far safer than 20 in a typical town.

This just shows that you are unable to adequately gauge risk.

> That you think 15mph is appropiate tells me you need to hand back your license.

This also shows that you are unable to adequately gauge risk.

In addition, it tells you that I don't think that cars should be prioritised at the cost of other road users. Personally, I'd set the limit at 30 km/h with Dutch style road markings and watch the number of road users explode while the number of motor vehicles plummets.

Post reply on HN