Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Claude Aug 12 2016, 12:24 PM

The story is http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/news/home/18966/a34-speed-curb-petition-doubles-in-wake-of-fatal-crash.html

The petition is https://www.change.org/p/oxford-city-council-save-lives-a34-50mph-with-speed-cameras

Over 1,300 names on a petition to reduce the speed limit to 50mph and install average speed cameras, and MP Benyon is now calling for action.

Does anyone else support this petition? I can't say I do, I just want to know why the accidents have happened in the first place.

Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 12 2016, 12:46 PM

I suppose if it were to reduce deaths, it might have to happen. I hate ASCs.

Posted by: JeffG Aug 12 2016, 01:05 PM

But they are very effective, unlike other "slow down and speed up when past" cameras. I just bung on the cruise control and let the idiots pass me. Nae problem.

Posted by: Biker1 Aug 12 2016, 02:10 PM

There are thousands of miles of dual carriageway in this country most at the national speed limit.
Like Claude, interested to know why this particular stretch of road.
I suppose to reduce the speed would be "being seen to do something" like the replacement of Ufton Crossing with a bridge.
Is it the road / crossing or is it some of the people that use it?

Posted by: x2lls Aug 12 2016, 02:59 PM

Roads are not dangerous, people are. The same is said about guns.

Posted by: Downlander Aug 14 2016, 10:47 AM

There are several reasons "why this stretch of road".

The slip roads at Beedon and East Ilsley have inadequately short acceleration lanes and extremely poor sightlines so that joining a two-lane highway where vehicles are travelling at high speed is very dangerous.

Another main factor is the hills. Gore Hill is very steep and with only two lanes the differences in speed between lorries and speeding cars, coupled with poor driving of course, often results in accidents and has done for many years. It is getting worse and worse as traffic volume increases.

There is also no hard shoulder so nowhere to escape, and nowhere for broken down vehicles to get off the carriageway.

Scarcely a day goes by when there is not an accident on the stretch of road between Beedon and Chilton.

On Wednesday 10 August there was a horrific fatal accident which killed a woman and three children and injured 12 people, one very seriously. This happened on Gore Hill and involved four cars and four lorries. This made national news and you must surely have heard about it.

There is little that can be done about irresponsible and poor driving habits, but at least slowing down the traffic may prevent some of these accidents or lessen their effects.

There is a new petition directed to the Government, please sign and help us.

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/164577

Posted by: Downlander Aug 14 2016, 10:57 AM

Apologies, I see the first link is to the recent fatal accident. I assumed it referred to the earlier fatal accident which triggered the petition linked in the same post.

Posted by: gel Aug 14 2016, 11:54 AM

I'm sure if TVP had maintained the Traffic Police base behind Chieveley Services, there'd have been more of a visible & covert presence on the A34 south & north of Chieveley.
I assume officers based in Berkshire turn round at W Ilsley or Harwell as edge of their boundary, and north of that covered from Wantage or Didcot area police.

There are occasional sightings of Nuclear Constabulary Police Land Rovers on Harwell- W Ilsley stretch as some of them seem to like to park up on The Ridgeway.
A34 not their domain, but am sure their occasional presence will slow down/ improve behaviour of many drivers. Their HQ is at Culham.
https://twitter.com/nuclearpolice

Posted by: Simon Kirby Aug 14 2016, 12:31 PM

I agree that it's necessary to understand the underlying cause - is it excessive speed for the conditions, or is it the ridiculously short acceleration lanes, or a problem with lorries? A 50mph limit may help, but there may be a more effective silution.

Posted by: Downlander Aug 14 2016, 02:53 PM

It's all of those things in various combinations with careless driving and excessive speed.

We know there are more effective solutions, but major improvements will take years to happen, even if Highways England can be persuaded to do anything. We have been asking for years already, but the carnage continues. Lowering the speed is a measure that can be taken quickly and would at least help a bit. It's a start, no more.

Posted by: Biker1 Aug 16 2016, 09:30 PM

As are many other slip roads on this and other dual carriageways.
Newbury By-pass section for example.

If it's just Gore Hill that is the problem then a lower speed limit is just required here.

As on most other dual carriageways.

An exaggeration and generalisation.

Then why not reduce the speed limit on all dual carriageways?

I appreciate your concerns Adrian but I still question why this section?
All dual carriageways are inherently dangerous for the reasons you have outlined in your post.
If slowing down traffic is a solution then is this the thin end of the wedge for slowing down all dual carriageways.
All of the 2000 deaths a year on our roads are a tragedy in themselves but it would appear to be a price we are prepared to pay for the convenience of the car and lorry.
Do we want to accept this toll we pay every year or do we want to slow down the whole country in an attempt to reduce it?

Posted by: Turin Machine Aug 17 2016, 12:58 AM

Sorry ole chap, but, Adrian? Who he?

Posted by: Biker1 Aug 17 2016, 06:53 AM

Was a Green Party candidate for Downland ward to WBC a while ago.

Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 17 2016, 08:22 AM

Whether other dual carriage ways deserve extra speed restrictions doesn't negate the possible need for speed restrictions on the A34.

Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 17 2016, 08:22 AM

Whether other dual carriage was deserve extra speed restrictions doesn't negate the possible need for speed restrictions on the A34.

Posted by: On the edge Aug 17 2016, 08:30 AM

I suspect, Gentlemen, in reality, you are both in violent agreement!

First, it's pretty obvious 'something needs to be done'. The accident rate is higher than the norm, so yes, it's right to investigate.

Second, to satisfy the immediate public 'headache' a speed limit would have a paracetamol effect; short term relief.

Third, for whatever reason, the original reburbishment of the A34 was flawed. It was supposed to be a trunk Euro route; which in most people's mind, would indicate a three lane motorway type road at bare minimum. However, like it or not, economics supported by the usual flawed 'expert statistics' suggested that the existing two lanes would be adequate.

Two lanes are really not now appropriate but we still have no money apparently. So a rethink for some of the route is necessary; but it will take time to think through and still longer to implement.

Some interesting parallels with the development and management of the old railway!

Posted by: Turin Machine Aug 17 2016, 10:37 AM

Ahh, right, I remember. A loser with a personal website. And absolutely no idea on the issues of vehicle pollution cause and effect. Made me chuckle. Didn't he move to Devon or somewhere? Thereby raising the average IQ of two countys simultaneously.

Posted by: On the edge Aug 17 2016, 10:53 AM

Love it; but be careful when applying that canard in Berkshire, when talking about election candidates; our dear friends at WBC have an admitted issue with numeracy!

Even so, as Alan Turing rightly said 'Sometimes it's the people no one imagines anything of who do the the things no one imagines'.

Posted by: Biker1 Aug 17 2016, 10:56 AM

OK, this speed restriction thing.
Where do you draw the line between an acceptable speed for people and goods that need to get somewhere in a reasonable time, and acceptable risk?
After all, if the speed were reduced to 20mph it is unlikely that anyone would be killed or seriously injured!
As may have pointed out the problem is with driving, not the road.
A road is not inherently dangerous. it is just an inanimate strip of tarmac.
Thus it must be those that use it that are dangerous.
You can impose a speed limit but this would not remove the other law breaking activities that many seem to find acceptable to break.
Mobile phones, dangerous driving, tiredness, tailgating, distractions etc.

(All in addition to the antics of BMW drivers who have been watching too much Top Gear!!! )

Posted by: Turin Machine Aug 17 2016, 11:14 AM

Part of the problem is that it is a hilly section of road, hgvs (bless 'em) need to maintain their rolling momentum and I see them constantly pulling out into the second lane to overtake slower traffic seemingly at the last moment. No problem with that, however when you combine this with drivers with mobiles, low attention spans, low experience, or indeed with a plenitude of distractions (like kids in the backseat) you create a 'perfect storm's scenario. A partial solution would be a third or slow traffic lane on these sections. Get it in France, works.

Posted by: On the edge Aug 17 2016, 05:46 PM

There might be something in that, but I'm not sure France is a particularly good example. 2013 results for fatalities on the road during that year:-

Per 100,000 population - UK 2.9, France 5.1
Per 100,000 vehicles - UK 5.1, France 7.6
Per 1 billion Km - UK 3.6, France 5.8

Total fatalities UK 1827, France 3268. WHO from Wikipedia.

Posted by: DereckT Aug 17 2016, 07:10 PM

I would suggest its standards not speed which is the more relevant factor here. Short of laying down speed humps or adding chicanes, a poor driver is not always deterred by cameras etc.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Aug 17 2016, 07:13 PM

I can't see how driving standards on that section of road can be significantly different from standards generally, so if the accident rate is significantly higher than what would normally be expected for that class of road then the problem lies with the road - bends, width, hills, length of accelerations lanes, etc.

Posted by: DereckT Aug 18 2016, 10:39 AM

You make a good and logical point. I would reply that the standard needed to drive in a straight line on relatively uncrowded road with other traffic at a similar speed is less than that needed to anticipate sometimes dramatic changes in visibility, speed and conditions. Having driven the A34 Newbury to Oxford for many years, the most obvious problem was always drivers being too close to each other, thus not having the time to react. What was also very amusing was on the days I rode my (ex) Police motorbike with my white helmet, standards around me raised considerably !

Posted by: blackdog Aug 18 2016, 11:20 AM

Whereas I would suggest that the failure of standards here is largely down to driving too fast for the prevailing traffic conditions and/or ill-judged overtaking manoevres (undertaking etc). If drivers won't slow themselves when the conditions warrant it then a logical solution is to enforce lower speed limits (eg using average speed cameras). Sadly this will impact on all traffic - even in the quieter periods when 70 might be a reasonable rate.

From what I have experienced in ASC zones in motorway roadworks the system not only slows speeds but also reduces naff overtaking and, where it still happens it happens more safely.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Aug 18 2016, 05:59 PM

I see what you mean - yes, I agree, it is poor driving that is causing the accidents, but the way to improve what I assume is an unacceptably high accident rate is either to improve the design of the road, which is the more effective method though long-term and expensive, or else to slow the traffic down, which isn't entirely effective and creates its own problems, though it is quick, simple, and cheap.

On that assumption - it's not clear to me that this argument has been made out that the road is actually less safe than any comparable length of road. I am very aware of the history of tragedies on the road and my anecdotal experience is that the acceleration lanes are murderously short, but road accidents are always subject to the statistics of small numbers and the accident rate is not necessarily significantly high and it may just be that there has been a random spate of accidents and that the danger of the road has entered the local popular consciousness. I sincerely hope my comments are not insensitive and I recognise that this is an appallingly difficult subject for anyone directly involved and I'm not at all dismissing the concern which is wholly appropriate, but I would like to see a rigorous comparison of the accident rate with that of a comparable length of road and see whether statistically the A34 accident rate is anomalous or not - and to be honest I'd be appalled if such analysis wasn't routinely rolled for every stretch of road in the UK and improvements applied when the statistics called for it.

Posted by: Biker1 Aug 18 2016, 09:21 PM

Interesting map http://www.roadsafetyfoundation.org/media/29912/rrm_britain_07-11.pdf.
A34 in thin green.
Or you can have a play with http://www.crashmap.co.uk/Search.
Select say the last 5 years and filter to "fatal".
I wonder how far down the list the A34 is on a list of "Britain's most dangerous roads"?
My attempts at Google to find out only result in the "Top 10" of which the A34 is not part.
In fact very few (if any) dual carriageway roads in the lists.

Posted by: On the edge Aug 19 2016, 09:48 AM

That's rather interesting isn't it? There should be some pointers in that lot.

Posted by: spartacus Aug 19 2016, 07:46 PM

So according to that Road Safety Foundation website the A34 is green and therefore classified as under ’Low Risk (safest) roads’ and the A338 between Wantage and the M4 is orange so is classified under ‘Medium risk roads’. There you have it. Not dangerous

Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 19 2016, 08:26 PM

It would be interesting to see if that is calculated for the entire length. The problem is a specific few miles north of Chieveley, where as the stretch south of Newbury seems fairly benign.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Aug 19 2016, 09:17 PM

Quite. I don't think we quite have the evidence that the A34 really does have accident black-spots, but the map isn't evidence that it doesn't.

Posted by: On the edge Aug 19 2016, 09:40 PM

I couldn't get the search to work in Biker's other link through my pad, but it looks as if that one would throw up indicators for the exact incident locations. It might well give the result people are looking for; vis A34 is no more dangerous than many other roads, apart from the stretch under discussion.

Posted by: Biker1 Aug 20 2016, 09:33 AM

It takes some time to load data OTE.
Zoom in to where you want to look, add your fitters, search and then sit back and wait a while!!
(Don't move the map while it loads or the loading will re-start).

Posted by: Biker1 Aug 22 2016, 07:21 AM

http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/news/home/19051/100mph-m4-boy-racer-fined-after-giving-false-name-to-police.html is a prime example of the real problems faced when on the roads, A34 or any other.
19 years old, 100mph, no insurance and could easily have caused a crash as bad or worse that the one that has raised this discussion.
Fined a mere £330 and a short ban.

Posted by: On the edge Aug 22 2016, 04:19 PM

Thanks for that. It's quite interesting to say the least.

Posted by: On the edge Aug 22 2016, 04:22 PM

Our legal system isn't good at working out priorities. Centred as it is on the protection of class and property.

Posted by: On the edge Aug 22 2016, 04:22 PM

Our legal system isn't good at working out priorities. Centred as it is on the protection of class and property.

Posted by: Turin Machine Aug 22 2016, 10:28 PM

Ah, but, old chap. That's entirely down to the standard of the driving, not the roads. Interesting that a few years ago the French government launched a road safety campaign in which they asked drivers to behave on the roads more like the English!

Posted by: je suis Charlie Aug 22 2016, 10:56 PM

Like this you mean?


http://www.thelocal.fr/20160316/french-drivers-urged-to-be-more-courteous-at-the-wheel

Lol

Posted by: On the edge Aug 23 2016, 06:03 AM

Which would all tend to suggest that whatever we spend on infrastructure improvement wouldn't make much difference to safety at least. So, given the time an investigation and then the design and construction of a physical solution will take, we might as well put the money to better use trying to speed the imminent introduction of driverless vehicles.

Posted by: je suis Charlie Aug 23 2016, 11:18 AM

And self crashing ones. Fnarr.

Posted by: On the edge Aug 23 2016, 12:15 PM

Yeah!.......but they can't be much worse can they.

Glad the Luddite Tendancy is still going strong

Posted by: je suis Charlie Sep 10 2016, 11:15 AM

And he's, you guessed it. Excess speed played no part in the latest tragedy on the A34. But still, don't let that stop the uninformed from whining on.

Posted by: Turin Machine Sep 10 2016, 06:14 PM

So what was it?

Posted by: spartacus Sep 10 2016, 06:29 PM

He's being charged with dangerous driving. I'd say excess speed was a critical factor

Posted by: je suis Charlie Sep 10 2016, 06:52 PM

Actually, he was using his mobile to change his music.

Posted by: Biker1 Sep 11 2016, 05:28 AM

Allegedly!!

Posted by: JeffG Sep 11 2016, 09:07 AM

Sorry - who are we talking about?

Edit: Ah - I found a brief story in the NWN about an Andover man who has been charged following last month's fatalities. But no details apart from the charges.

Posted by: Biker1 Sep 11 2016, 09:37 AM

The Forum's favourite has the details!!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3781798/Three-children-killed-mother-horror-crash-partner-son-watched-car-Polish-lorry-driver-changing-music-phone.html

Posted by: On the edge Sep 11 2016, 10:55 AM

Pretty reasonable outline.

Given the hideous cost of administering justice, perhaps it's time we looked at privatising the Courts properly. The sale of newsprint is declining rapidly, so why not exploit the undoubted expertise and disinterested analysis provided by Mail reporters and let them run the Courts on an agency basis? After all, most of them are pretty sound on British values.

Posted by: JeffG Sep 11 2016, 12:25 PM

Thanks. So he was Polish. That makes all the difference. Dreadful rag.

Posted by: On the edge Sep 11 2016, 03:34 PM

By the sales figures, it's still remarkably popular, but I've never worked out quite why when everyone seems to feign a very different opinion.

Posted by: Turin Machine Sep 11 2016, 05:49 PM

Yup, a lot of us swivel eyed Tory loons out there!

Posted by: Biker1 Sep 11 2016, 05:51 PM

So, he was from Andover.
What difference does that make?
Bloody NWN!

Posted by: On the edge Sep 12 2016, 06:49 AM

Do you want Andoverites moving here? Readingites are bad enough, but Andover, its even a different County!

Posted by: Biker1 Sep 12 2016, 07:23 AM

Oh dear OTE!
You seem to be displaying a rather bigoted point of view the like of which I have not seen from you before.
I detect an "anti Hampshire" or "Hamphobia" tone in your post!!

Posted by: On the edge Sep 12 2016, 08:18 AM

Posted by: Turin Machine Sep 12 2016, 08:21 AM

I say keep em out! Big fence at the border! Flipping swede bashers.

Posted by: Claude Sep 12 2016, 10:09 AM

If the vehicle was driving at 50mph or even 40mph, would there have been fatalities? Who knows?!

Of course speed was not the main reason for the accident, but I don't think it's fair to say excess speed played no part. The driver was driving too fast to perform the manoeuvre (of adjusting the music on his phone (allegedly)).

Posted by: je suis Charlie Sep 12 2016, 12:00 PM

It you don't know what speed he was doo.g do you.

Posted by: Claude Sep 12 2016, 12:34 PM

It no I doo.g n't.

But I do know he was driving too fast to stop (unless he chose not to), and too fast to complete the manoeuvre, and as a result of the speed he was doing 4 people (?) lost their lives.

Posted by: Berkshirelad Sep 12 2016, 01:03 PM

a ) his class of vehicle is limited to 56 mph
b ) any speed was dangerous given that he was using his mobile at the time and not paying attention to the road
c ) given b ), applying a (50mph?) limit to this stretch of road would have made no difference whatsoever

Posted by: Claude Sep 12 2016, 02:50 PM

a) fascinating

b ) even 1mph?

c) I don't know any facts about the accident but if we assume the guy was driving at 56mph, it's impossible for anyone to know whether the outcome might have been different had he been limited to 50mph. To say it would have made no difference whatsoever isn't something you can support

My point is not that there should be a mandated limit of 50mph, or any other number chosen at random, I was simply arguing against JSC's point that excess speed had no part to play.

Posted by: je suis Charlie Sep 12 2016, 03:46 PM

But that is my point. You don't know, he may have been travelling at 45mph. A blanket 50mph limit would not have made a difference. It wouldn't have happened if Bozo the clown hadn't been using his mobile

Posted by: gel Sep 12 2016, 04:21 PM

Presumably police will know from his tacograph exactly what his speed was,
and how many hours he'd been working.

Posted by: spartacus Sep 12 2016, 07:16 PM

Exactly. The speed he was travelling at would have had a material effect on the stopping distance for that HGV. A stopping distance that would have been further lengthened if it was a full load he was carrying. Whether he was picking his nose, lighting a fag or fiddling with his phone, the speed was in excess of that which allowed him to stop in time. It therefore had a part to play.



He may even have been driving within the current limit, but you primarily drive according to road conditions (weather, how busy it is etc) not speed limits. Either his speed was too fast for the conditions or his brain to footbrake interface was too slow.

Posted by: je suis Charlie Sep 12 2016, 07:31 PM

Or he was playin with his mobile.

Posted by: Ron Sep 12 2016, 07:34 PM

Or he may have been like a Walkers Crisp lorry last Monday that went all the way up Gore Hill past all the signs saying 7.5 t was the maximum for the right hand lane.

Posted by: newres Sep 12 2016, 08:43 PM

Perhaps they were Walkers Lite Crisps?

Posted by: je suis Charlie Sep 12 2016, 09:30 PM

Trucker, probably trying to entertain a 'lady of the night'.

Posted by: Berkshirelad Sep 13 2016, 08:43 AM

Or maybe the driver knows that those signs were not enforceable and he was committing no offence

Posted by: gel Sep 13 2016, 09:17 AM

Next time not his Reg No if safe; and then tweet* driver's employer's- they all normally have driving policies
their drivers are supposed to adhere to.


*https://twitter.com/walkers_crisps

Posted by: Ron Sep 13 2016, 10:41 AM

My passenger did and an e-mail was sent to Walkers. But if as previously stated the signs are not legal then it will probably fall on deaf ears.

Posted by: Berkshirelad Sep 13 2016, 12:51 PM

This is the archived detail of thehttps://pc-tec.co.uk/dell-optiplex-760-dt-core-2-duo-2gb-160gb.html?gclid=CIfZgtyujM8CFdU_GwodIUUJjQin 2010

Posted by: Biker1 Sep 14 2016, 08:24 AM

There we go again.
Deviating from thread topic!
Good value for a PC though.
Thanks!!

Posted by: Biker1 Sep 14 2016, 08:25 AM

As time is money I wouldn't be surprised if Walkers gave him a pat on the back!

Posted by: motormad Sep 14 2016, 11:56 AM

I don't think reducing speed limit will help.

People will still do 70/80.

It needs enforced HGV traffic restricted to inside lane along certain stretches. Some sliproads should be extended (bollocks there is plenty of space to do so).

And what's more people need to get off their ruddy phones / sat navs and actually use their eyes.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Sep 14 2016, 07:27 PM

Indeedy.

However, I had a look at the accident statistics to try and make an informed argument around this and I was surprised to see that the accident rate is falling, because I had expected to see it increasing as smart phones become more and more popular, but in the total accident rate there doesn't appear to be the evidence to support the view that mobile phones are causing accidents.

But whatever, I would still like to see using a mobile while driving becoming taboo.

Posted by: je suis Charlie Sep 14 2016, 10:43 PM

[quote name='Simon Kirby' date='Sep 14 2016, 08:27

But whatever, I would still like to see using a mobile whle driving becoming taboo.
[/quote]
As opposed to merely illegal.

Posted by: Turin Machine Sep 14 2016, 11:54 PM

I think he means in the same way as drink driving has become 'taboo'.

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 15 2016, 12:48 AM

I think it is taboo, but using a mobile is so important that it is hard to avoid using it when driving.

Posted by: On the edge Sep 15 2016, 06:49 AM

I hope you don't mind me saying so, but this seemed total boll***s at first, but with further thought, it's spot on. Sure, we can blame the driver for using mobile phones but today's society does indeed mean being in constant communication is so important. So, ok, leaving aside the leasure and domestic reasons, our business environment is exactly the same. How many business processes rely on almost immediate communication with people in the field? It's almost implicit to design processes where the operator is expected to use 'technology' to find delivery instructions or even answer job related queries whilst on the move....and yet base the operative (drivers) performance on number of visits made, or exact times met. If we are going to make it taboo, which necessarily means winning hearts and minds, we've a lot of rethinking to do.

Great post AC!

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 15 2016, 08:18 AM

Rightly or wrongly, I doubt there are many people who have not conducted or attempted to use a mobile while driving. Even if there is, there will also be people whose driving has been adversely affected by a phone call or message while driving.

Posted by: On the edge Sep 15 2016, 09:15 AM

Yes, and given the ability of a Smart Phone to do so much more, its all so very easy.

Posted by: JeffG Sep 15 2016, 09:29 AM

There's a world of difference between holding a phone to your ear while driving, and a system that is fully integrated into the car via bluetooth. Of course, holding any conversation while driving can be distracting, as can listening to the radio.

Posted by: On the edge Sep 15 2016, 10:18 AM

I think that's right, to a point and as you so rightly suggest it depends then on the conversation. How do you then isolate a 'tele conference', a difficult query with an aggressive customer, receiving detailed job instructions from simple day to day chatter with friends etc? I've witnessed examples of all the above in the last three weeks simply by accepting lifts from people who had hands free kit. At the time, it seemed OK, we were either in moving traffic on a long rural road, or between long gapped motorway junctions. Yes, listening to the radio, in my case Radio 4 talk programmes can be just as bad; in my case twice having to sharply re-focus so to speak, after being well wound up by something said.

Posted by: Claude Sep 15 2016, 01:05 PM

Physically, of course, it's impossible to disagree.

I wonder if there have been any studies to compare the levels of distraction using either method - after all, isn't that the main problem with using devices while driving - being distracted from the road rather than only having one hand to operate the vehicle with?

And can't you still be prosecuted for using a fully integrated handsfree device to make/receive phone calls while driving?

Posted by: Turin Machine Sep 15 2016, 01:27 PM

Yes you can, if it can be shown to be a causal effect in driving without due care. But I wonder what the figures are for accidents caused by mummy turning around in the driving seat to shout at her little darlings?

Posted by: JeffG Sep 15 2016, 02:11 PM

Ha! That reminds me of the one time I drove on the périphérique in Paris, and the one time I demanded complete silence from my family with me so I could really concentrate! A woman a few cars ahead in one of the middle lanes slammed on her brakes and turned round to remonstrate with her yapping dog in the rear seat.

Posted by: Biker1 Sep 17 2016, 08:43 AM

Two incorrect statements on Newbury Today today.

1. The A34 is a "dangerous road"
2. The pedestrian crossing in Hungerford High Street is a "lethal" one!
Both, as we know, should refer to the "dangerous drivers" who use / abuse them.

The A34 is just a strip of tarmac.
The Hungerford crossing is just some lights and some black & white paint.
How can a static, inanimate object be dangerous.
By creating these misnomers on a regular basis the real causes of the problem are missed or diverted in this "someone / something else to blame" society that we now seem to have.

Posted by: JeffG Sep 17 2016, 09:08 AM

So, you wouldn't class this as a "dangerous road"?

http://lh6.ggpht.com/_hVOW2U7K4-M/SoS-rDmlWZI/AAAAAAABEQE/AP4WK-C-xuU/s640/r2.jpg

Or this?

http://image.slidesharecdn.com/themostdangerousroadsintheworld-150131123243-conversion-gate02/95/the-most-dangerous-roads-in-the-world-20-638.jpg?cb=1422729269

(You don't need much Spanish to understand the caption!)

Just strips opf tarmac

Posted by: Biker1 Sep 17 2016, 09:11 AM

Point taken, if rather to the extreme.
But yes, they are just strips of tarmac. They are not dangerous until someone uses them.
The point I am trying to make is that you can improve slip roads,yes. Move phone boxes, yes. But until the real problem of the appalling driving standards of many drivers / bikers / cyclists (and yes, the foolishness of some pedestrians) on the roads today the injury / deaths will continue.
Not easy to achieve I agree but surely attempts should be made to do so.
Maybe today's increase in the penalties for using a mobile while driving is a small, but probably inadequate, step in the right direction??

Posted by: On the edge Sep 17 2016, 12:52 PM

I think you are right Biker. It's the 'wetware', in other words us. I suppose that's why rail is so safe, humans are almost eliminated in the control and usually, accidents only happen when they are.

Posted by: Biker1 Oct 10 2016, 03:30 PM

http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/news/home/19506/lorry-driver-s-needless-and-avoidable-phone-use-caused-family-s-death-on-a34.html

Posted by: newres Oct 10 2016, 03:57 PM

Well done. You were right.

Posted by: Turin Machine Oct 10 2016, 11:26 PM

The answer is simple if unpalatable and due to cost constraints almost certainly impossible to enforce, and that is a total and complete ban on the use of mobile devices in vehicles. Some of the people I see shouldn't be let out in control of a piece of damp string! A 1.5 ton vehicle and a mobile is begging for trouble.

Posted by: blackdog Oct 11 2016, 11:53 PM

The real solution - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-37618574

Posted by: On the edge Oct 12 2016, 06:00 AM

Can't come soon enough; its going to be a real paradigm change in all sorts of ways.

Posted by: Biker1 Oct 12 2016, 08:47 AM

Trouble is to alleviate this situation you would need a driverless lorry!

Posted by: On the edge Oct 12 2016, 12:22 PM

Don't want to worry you but they are already being trialled, on public roads and so far successfully.

Posted by: blackdog Oct 12 2016, 12:41 PM

Car, lorry, the technology is the same. I'd guess that we will see driverless lorries in numbers before cars.

Posted by: HJD Oct 13 2016, 03:30 PM

It's really about time there was a complete overhaul of the Car Driving Test. Look at the stages one has to go through to ride a Motorcycle nowadays for instance. Apart from the introduction of the Theory Exam the Car Test has remained basically the same for years. How about having a period of time in a limited power vehicle for example. Also at the moment you can pass the test driving round Newbury for an hour or so then you can go straight out onto the Motorway with no further instruction !! I personally think it's about time it was incorporated into the test.

Posted by: Turin Machine Oct 13 2016, 03:55 PM

Basically, even after all the changes a few years back, all you need to do is memorise a few signs and drive around for a bit without crashing and that's it! Free to stick a loud zorst and a few 'Maxpower' stickers on you're mums old car and drive round like a twonk whilst checking your face book status.

Posted by: spartacus Oct 13 2016, 05:11 PM

People who live in Deepest Norfolk might disagree as they'd have to take a day trip just to get to their nearest Motorway. These people who live out in the sticks have enough trouble driving their tractors with their six fingers as it is... don't foist another impossible task on them...

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 13 2016, 05:26 PM

Motorways are safer than town and rural roads.

Posted by: dannyboy Oct 13 2016, 09:42 PM

Indeed - it happens locally .....

Posted by: gel Oct 31 2016, 12:00 PM

A lorry driver has been jailed for 10 years for killing a mother and three children.

http://news.sky.com/story/a34-crash-lorry-driver-jailed-for-killing-family-while-on-phone-10639721

Posted by: newres Oct 31 2016, 12:26 PM

In spite of the consequences, and probably most of us were to some extent upset by this accident, it's hard not to feel a certain sympathy for the driver. If I understand correctly he was changing his music? It's just an horrendously sad event.

Posted by: dannyboy Oct 31 2016, 12:52 PM

No it isn't hard. - he was on his phone.

Posted by: je suis Charlie Oct 31 2016, 02:47 PM

Out in less than 5 years while the husband gets what amounts to a life sentence. Poor man.

Posted by: JeffG Oct 31 2016, 03:13 PM

He was criminally responsible for killing 4 people. He doesn't deserve anyone's sympathy. 10 years is far too little especially as another poster says he'll be out in 5 years. A life sentence would have sent a strong message to anyone else tempted to use their phone while driving, but I don't suppose that was available.

Posted by: newres Oct 31 2016, 04:04 PM

Except that tens of thousands of people every day commit the same crime. The difference is just one of chance. If you or anyone else has NEVER touched your phone whilst driving, changed a CD, checked an address in a diary then you have every right to feel outraged, but if you are one of the tens of thousands that every day are guilty of the same crime, then just thank your lucky stars that you never wiped out a family.

Posted by: Biker1 Oct 31 2016, 04:15 PM

Oh, that's OK then!
Oh and no I haven;t done any of the things you mentioned. Not while driving at speed on a "dangerous" busy dual carriageway.
I think it's more than chance of luck that I haven't "wiped out a family".
Honestly newres, you do come out in support of the weirdest things / people!
Sympathy for the driver????

Posted by: newres Oct 31 2016, 04:42 PM

Obviously it's always been totally safe where you've done those things.

Posted by: newres Oct 31 2016, 04:50 PM

Incidentally, I'm not saying he didn't deserve 10 years. I also think the vehicle he was driving makes the crime worse. I'm simply saying that I'll bet there aren't many reading this that haven't used their mobiles whilst driving. Every day of the week I see people on their phones.

Posted by: Turin Machine Oct 31 2016, 05:18 PM

So, by that reasoning you could take a hunting rifle up to the top of the church tower and fire at random and it would only really matter if you hit someone? Dangerous logic at best.

However, that said, let's end the point scoring posts on this subject. Have a little sympathy for the bereaved.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Oct 31 2016, 05:20 PM

Not me chap. YOU may do it which as far as im concerned makes you a danger to everyone else. People should instantly lose their licence if caught. I dont see any difference between this and drink driving. A drink driver may be looking but their actions and responses will be impaired. Not looking at all is MORE dangerous. Just hope you get caught if you do it or indeed anyone else.

Posted by: je suis Charlie Oct 31 2016, 05:21 PM

Agreed.

Posted by: On the edge Oct 31 2016, 05:25 PM

I've a degree of sympathy for what you said. It's endemic; I've just walked along the Bath Road, one truck and three cars with drivers using phones! The Lorry Driver who deserves everything he gets doubtless thought it was safe. If ot really does depend on the situation, who expects stationery/slow traffic on a fast rural road.

Posted by: newres Oct 31 2016, 05:44 PM

No, that is YOUR logic. Would he deserve 10 years if he did NOT hit someone and was caught? He is only getting 10 years because he did kill people. My point is that the offence is the same.

Posted by: spartacus Oct 31 2016, 06:58 PM

Not me either. I'm one of those dinosaurs who doesn't even own a mobile phone.... and if I was ever to change music on my 8 Track while driving I'm also too much of a dinosaur to be having a dashcam pointing at me and catching every nose pick...

Posted by: motormad Nov 7 2016, 10:35 AM

I can totally see where Newres is coming from.
I think many of us have taken our eyes off the road to check something in the Glovebox/radio/phone at some point.
Those who vehemently deny that they have are probably the worst offenders... !

The guy did not set out to kill people I'm sure.
However as a "professional" driver he should have ensured his attention was on the road.
Certainly had a car ploughed into the back of the traffic jam dare I say the family may still be together today.

While there is absolutely zero excuses for the lorryist's actions we can understand we may have all been there before.
That being said the video shows him paying next to no attention for upwards of 45 seconds and for me I may glance at the stereo while messing with the music rather than stare at it...

Posted by: Biker1 Nov 7 2016, 06:17 PM

I agree with your point to a certain extent, but now that this tragedy has had full media exposure surely now there is no excuse?
Let at least some good come from it.

Posted by: newres Nov 19 2016, 10:13 AM

Just as a comparison. The driver of this bus got 14 months. I know that the outcome was different, but to me the driver of the bus deserved 10 years or more. The actual "infringement" of the driver of the bus is far worse than the lorry driver's. Don't get me wrong, I do think the sentence was right for the lorry driver, but I hope you see where I'm coming from in terms of having some "empathy" with the driver. The driver of the bus on the other hand is beyond sympathy.

http://www.expressandstar.com/news/crime/2016/04/01/three-in-court-charged-with-stealing-bus/

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Nov 19 2016, 05:18 PM

I think ANYONE using a mobile whilst driving is an idiot and is just as bad if not worse than a drink driver. They deserve to be treated as a pariah. Fines are no use. Licence revoked for a minimum of 12 months and a fine based on income. Until you do that idiots who think that business calls cannot wait should lose there jobs. Period.

Posted by: Turin Machine Nov 19 2016, 07:46 PM

Quite agree.

Posted by: newres Nov 19 2016, 07:48 PM

So not as serious a crime as the bus joyriders then? If the bus joyriders had killed someone they'd have got 10 years I guess, but the crime is the same even though they didn't kill anyone - intent wise and negligence wise. In my opinion that should have been a long period of imprisonment as it was just luck no one died.

Posted by: Turin Machine Nov 19 2016, 08:32 PM

What are the words I'm looking for? Ah yes, grasping at straws, that's it.

Posted by: blackdog Nov 19 2016, 08:47 PM

The lorry driver got 10 years because he killed several people, not because he was using his phone while driving. If he had crashed into a car and no one was hurt he would have got a fine, some points on his licence, possibly a few month's ban. If the joyriders killed someone they woulg have got a lengthy prison term.

The basic crimes are very different, the effects of the crimes were very different, the sentences were different - hardly surprising.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Nov 19 2016, 09:23 PM

So someone who is 1mg over the limit is more dangerous than someone not looking at the road at all? This thread was also about mobile usage in cars. Not joyriders. Sorry newres I can see where u are coming from sometimes but not this. Ive lost family in car accidents. This is deadly serious.

Posted by: Biker1 Nov 20 2016, 08:37 AM

Many, many people use a phone while driving.
Very few nick buses to joyride round the town.
The point is that the message has to be driven home (no pun intended) that usong a phone at the wheel is morally and socially unacceptable.
The sentence given out to the A34 miscreant also an attempt to bring this message home to all drivers.

Posted by: newres Nov 20 2016, 10:50 AM

The message given out is that if you kill people while using your phone you'll be imprisoned. That is obviously a rare event. Isn't it just 3 points for using a mobile phone? Hardly driving the message home is it?

Posted by: James_Trinder Nov 20 2016, 11:17 AM

I agree - the number of penalty points given out should be in the 3-11 range like drink or drug driving and the points should stay on your record for 11 years like those offences. That's the only way that you are going to see a real change in driver behaviour in my opinion.

https://www.gov.uk/penalty-points-endorsements/endorsement-codes-and-penalty-points

Posted by: Turin Machine Nov 20 2016, 11:33 AM

In these days of Bluetooth connectivity it always strikes me as strange that anybody would need to handle their device while driving anyway.

Posted by: user23 Nov 20 2016, 12:40 PM

To read and reply to posts on social media.

Posted by: JeffG Nov 20 2016, 01:04 PM

Talking on the phone is one thing, but for that I would lock them up and throw away the key. Crazy!

Posted by: user23 Nov 20 2016, 01:43 PM

True. It's http://www.computerworld.com/article/3014439/internet/social-media-addiction-is-a-bigger-problem-than-you-think.html though.

Posted by: je suis Charlie Nov 20 2016, 02:24 PM

Ah yes, social media, the panacea of the feeble.

Posted by: user23 Nov 20 2016, 02:35 PM

Somewhat ironic, posting that statement on a discussion form.

Posted by: je suis Charlie Nov 20 2016, 04:15 PM

True, however, I was thinking of idiot book and Twitter, not to mention insternoob! The true curse of the age.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Nov 20 2016, 05:47 PM

The twitterartii. Where the millionaires like Gary and Lilly can moan about how unfair life is for the poor. Whilst sitting on multi million pound fortunes. Oh to be so rich that you can be so "moral"...

Posted by: newres Nov 20 2016, 06:35 PM

Deliberate irony? Puts me in mind of Nigel Farage and Donald Trump.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Nov 20 2016, 07:38 PM

Yep. The deliverer of Brexit and the new leader of the free world.
And a drunk pop star and a millionaire has been footballer.
#Frexit #Nexit

Posted by: newres Nov 20 2016, 07:42 PM

Both gained victory by pretending to be on the side of the poor, disenfranchised white man.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Nov 20 2016, 07:56 PM

White man? How dare anyone appeal to that scum?

Posted by: user23 Nov 20 2016, 08:05 PM

Are they meant to say nothing then?

I like this quote: “When I was poor and complained about inequality they said I was bitter; now that I'm rich and I complain about inequality they say I'm a hypocrite. I'm beginning to think they just don't want to talk about inequality.”

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Nov 20 2016, 09:10 PM

I am happy to talk about equality. Its more positive than talking about inequality. Whats your definition of equality? Mine probably differs from yours.

Posted by: x2lls Nov 24 2016, 11:22 PM

In regard to the original post, which appears miles away.

A solution to the short entry merge junctions on the a34 (and, I may add, the a34/a303) would be a speed restriction at the junctions. Drop the speed with the much hated ASC. Job done with no bulldozers, minimal timescales and importantly for the money , less cost.

Posted by: JeffG Nov 25 2016, 09:02 AM

Much hated? By whom? By those who ignore speed limits?

I don't mind them. I just set cruise control to 50 or whatever it is, and hope that those that pass me get caught.

Posted by: x2lls Nov 25 2016, 09:10 AM

That wasn't the point of my comment.

Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 25 2016, 09:24 AM

I hate them.

Posted by: Biker1 Nov 25 2016, 09:52 AM

There is always a downside to every potential solution.
Presuming that you mean speed limits on the main carriageway at junctions and not just on the slip roads?
Sudden braking from 70 - 80mph and consequential shunts from those travelling too close?
Monitoring and implementing fines?
All these so called solutions all seem to remove the reason for the road which was built, as we know from by-pass protest days, as a high speed link between the South Coast and the Midlands.
The whole thing is a balance between speed and danger with time and safety being the deciding factors.
If safety is the prime concern then maybe the whole road should be restricted to 30mph.
Most lives would be saved at the expense of time spent.
If time (and therefore money) is the main factor then the loss of life / injury is the price we must pay it would seem.
What is the happy medium??

Posted by: JeffG Nov 25 2016, 10:13 AM

But you made a separate point by using that adjective. I was querying that. Why, in your view, are they hated?

Posted by: x2lls Nov 25 2016, 10:14 AM

Where did that one come from?

Posted by: x2lls Nov 25 2016, 10:20 AM

That question is an example of why posts morph. Stick to the point. try page one again.

Posted by: Biker1 Nov 25 2016, 10:53 AM

Well, you have a dual carriageway speed restricted at 70mph but, as we well know, most travel faster than that.
If you have speed restrictions, at a suggested 50mph, at every junction then inevitably there will be braking to comply with the ASC's and, as we also know, folks travel too close and will therefore shunt those braking in front of them.
I know it shouldn't happen, but it would.
P.S. Especially if they are on the phone!!

Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 25 2016, 12:54 PM

He said they are hated, which is true, not that he necessarily hates them.

Posted by: On the edge Nov 25 2016, 01:33 PM

Driverless vehicles will eliminate the problem with no physical change. They aren't that far off, so the cost benefit case for any major expenditure will be difficult to make. We might just have to live with things as they are.

Posted by: x2lls Nov 25 2016, 03:23 PM

Thank you!!

Posted by: HJD Nov 25 2016, 06:37 PM

I think keeping to the speed limit is mainly ignored by most drivers on most roads these days. A lot drive up & down the Link more near 70 than 50, the manic idiot that continues to hurtle round the Ecchinswell lanes etc. Where there are no ASCs the chances of getting caught with the lack of Patrol Police is minimal whatever road you are on I'm afraid.

Posted by: Berkshirelad Nov 28 2016, 10:14 AM

A bit further actually. The A34 was originally the Portsmouth-Preston trunk road

Posted by: Berkshirelad Nov 28 2016, 10:17 AM

Set at 50 mph on your speedometer - then you will be travelling at less than 50 mph and I, for one, will be one of those passing you

What amuses me about ASC is those who brake to pass the cameras, thus demonstrating their intellectual ability to understand the word average

Posted by: JeffG Nov 28 2016, 10:32 AM

I just quoted a figure. I am fully aware that speedos underread and set my speed accordingly, e.g. in a thirty I usually drive at around 32-33 indicated (not on cc obviously). I wish my all singing all dancing dash display would show me GPS speed as an alternative.

Posted by: gel Nov 30 2016, 07:24 AM

A34 from Chieveley North to be considered for upgrade to Expressway:

http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/14936453.Major_upgrades_to_A34_and_at_least_22_miles_of_new_road_part_of_plans_for_Oxford_Cambridge_Expressway/

Posted by: blackdog Nov 30 2016, 02:33 PM

What is an 'expressway'? What sort of standard of road are they suggesting?

Posted by: gel Nov 30 2016, 06:47 PM

Presumably not the road in Newbury where the dairy is!
see:
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/565364/Mini-motorways-England-A-roads-expressways-Highways-England-technology-Wi-Fi

Posted by: user23 Nov 30 2016, 07:22 PM

That article is getting on for two years ago.

Posted by: blackdog Dec 1 2016, 12:40 AM

But interesting nonetheless - I don't suppose the concept of an expressway has changed much in two years.

Posted by: gel Dec 5 2016, 03:07 PM

Driving Standards The Issue:

http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/14946246.__39_Roads_don__39_t_kill_people____drivers_do__39____Police_road_safety_boss_slams_driver_behaviour_on_A34/?ref=mr&lp=3

Posted by: Biker1 Dec 5 2016, 06:26 PM

Sgt Chris Appleby, I couldn't agree with you more.
Went up to Birmingham last Friday via "dangerous" A34.
Queue of traffic in outside lane behind slow overtaking juggernaut.
Another one pulls up alongside me on the inside and then starts to indicate right as his lane was then blocked.
Panic but what could I do so I stood my ground and he dropped back and then pulled over behind me.
This obviously p'd him off because he then spent an nerve racking 3 minutes or so about 1 metre behind me at about 60mph until the lane cleared ahead and I could pull away.
Dangerous road?
Dangerous twats more like!!

Posted by: Andy Capp Dec 5 2016, 08:28 PM

I've had similar events, including being boxed.

Posted by: Turin Machine Dec 17 2016, 07:30 PM

This might be part of the answer

"Mobile phones could soon be blocked from working while cars are being driven to deter people from using them at the wheel.
Almost one in three motorists admitted they have used their phone while driving and 17,500 people were taken to court last year.
The Department for Transport will have an 'exploratory meeting' with mobile phone companies and network providers early next year to discuss the new technology. "

If it's true, and if it works, great!!

Posted by: JeffG Dec 17 2016, 07:52 PM

Once again the few spoiling it for the many who have proper in-built hands-free equipment.

Posted by: On the edge Dec 17 2016, 08:10 PM

Interesting development. The safety people have never been convinced that hands free makes much of a difference, apparently it was only left out of the banning legislation because the Police felt it would be too difficult to enforce. A technical solution to what is an endemic major issue can't be a bad thing.

Posted by: Turin Machine Dec 17 2016, 08:28 PM

Now, if they can now come up with a software solution that stops mums from turning around to talk to the kids on the back seat it would be a start!

Posted by: On the edge Dec 17 2016, 09:18 PM

Your wish is our command.....driverless vehicles are in production test right now.

Personally, I'd say that's the ideal solution and I can't wait!

Posted by: Turin Machine Dec 18 2016, 12:30 AM

You may have to, it will require amended law sets. Plus while semi autonomous cars have been here for a while there are certain problems.

Posted by: On the edge Dec 18 2016, 06:49 AM

True of every innovation; bring it on!

Posted by: JeffG Dec 18 2016, 12:03 PM

Is there much difference between using a hands free phone and listening to Radio 4 where you have to think about what's being said, or talking to a passenger? Incidentally, I prefer silence when I'm driving on my own and rarely have the radio on.

Posted by: On the edge Dec 18 2016, 05:14 PM

Not at all sure, but certainly the safety tyros and Police claim it is. A couple of firms I deal with have 'banned' hands free in their vehicles. It's probably me, but I'd much rather be doing something else than having to look at the angry expressions and gestures from other drivers when you make some breach of the traffic code. One the other day was so bad, he almost made drop my hot pasty.

Posted by: HJD Dec 18 2016, 07:38 PM

That's one of the best things I enjoy when on my Motorbike, no distractions therefor total concentration on what I'm doing.

Posted by: On the edge Dec 18 2016, 10:04 PM

Helmet speakers not connected hands free yet HJD?

Posted by: HJD Dec 19 2016, 10:40 AM

No, I don't even take the wife on the back, total peace !

Posted by: Biker1 Dec 20 2016, 10:28 AM

Yep, nothing quite beats it eh?
Roll on the Spring!
(Sorry Brewmaster!!)
(Another anti bike letter in the NWN. We're not all bad you know)

Posted by: Berkshirelad Dec 20 2016, 01:00 PM

However...

Many people use their mobiles as satnav these days;
Black box insurance uses the mobile telephone system I believe;
how do you restrict the 'blanking' to just the driver - or is there to be no mobile phone use by passengers - even on buses;
how do ensure retro fit - normally laws in this country are not retrospective
how will manufacturers ensure that such a device will not interfere with vehicle electronics
some high-end vehicles use the mobiles system to communicate with owners/dealers/manufacturers/SOS centres

The DoT may wish, even demand, this but the changes in the law will be a change of the Wireless Telegraphy legislation, not traffic legislation, which currently does not allow individuals to transmit on the mobile phone spectra. This is why mobiles cannot be blocked in schools or prisons, etc

Great soundbite but, as usual, impractical.

...and I believe that the lorry driver jailed for the recent fatal on the A34 was fiddling with the music side of his mobile - which wouldn't have been prevented by blocking his mobile signal

What is needed, until it can be upgraded, is a far greater Police presence on the A34. Plus the ability for the Police to confiscate a mobile, place it just in front of the rear wheel and wave the driver on his way...

Posted by: spartacus Dec 20 2016, 08:33 PM

Fully agree with your post and have argued the same when it's been discussed in the pub. Why should passengers phones be locked out (can you imagine the carnage on the back seat from teenagers denied use of their mobiles for more than 10 minutes). How would the signal determine whether you were in a car and blocked, or in a train and entitled to use a phone. Or on a coach trip. More people use their phones as Satnavs. Not everyone has a car with an inbuilt device or a separate Tom Tom device.

And if it wasn't for the presence of the dashcam in this instance of the A34 fatal it would have been recorded as an unfortunate accident as the driver wasn't actually 'using his mobile'. He could have claimed he nodded off, or had a medical incident. It would still have been a terrible incident, but he personally wouldn't have been vilified or subject to jail time. Using the phone as an mp3 player is something which many people will also want to keep continuing to use their mobiles for in the car.

Posted by: Turin Machine Dec 20 2016, 10:26 PM

I do sometimes worry about the somewhat Orwellian slavishness with which some people regard their devices, one of my great joys is to go away for two or three weeks, get there, throw the phone in a drawer and forget about it. But seriously, we need to do something to fix the problem, every day I see Lord knows how many people steering one handed whilst pressing a square of plastic to the side of their heads totally oblivious to the world.

I remember the fuss when laws required you to wear seat belts, "can't be done" "stupid idea" people said. But it's the norm now.

Posted by: Andy Capp Dec 20 2016, 10:34 PM

Perhaps we should make mobiles easier and safer to use when driving?

Posted by: Turin Machine Dec 20 2016, 11:13 PM

Its called Bluetooth.

Posted by: Andy Capp Dec 21 2016, 02:26 AM

Yeah but Siri isn't quite there yet.

Posted by: Turin Machine Dec 21 2016, 10:20 AM

Omg! Apple is like, so last year matey! WOW you must be like so OLD man!

Posted by: Andy Capp Dec 22 2016, 12:45 AM

I just discovered it ain't compatible with Betamax cassettes!

Posted by: Turin Machine Dec 22 2016, 09:01 AM

Try it with video disks!

Posted by: Biker1 Jan 25 2017, 08:11 PM

http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/news/home/20448/driver-using-mobile-phone-the-cause-of-yet-another-fatal-crash-on-a34.html
Again not the road that's "dangerous" but the twats that use it!!
These idiots don't take any notice of one law so why would they abide by a 50mph speed limit?

Posted by: blackdog Jan 26 2017, 08:13 PM

You rarely see anyone speeding in an average speed check stretch of motorway.

Posted by: Biker1 Jan 27 2017, 09:03 AM

OK fair enough but you can still kill people with a 40 ton juggernaut (or even a Fiat 500) if you are not watching where where you are going!
Perhaps the speed limit should be 20mph to cater for these types!?

Posted by: Berkshirelad Jan 27 2017, 09:42 AM

4 mph and a man with a red flag preceding.

See Road Safety and unemployment issues resolved at a stroke

Posted by: JeffG Jan 27 2017, 10:01 AM

True enough - but would such a speed limit on the A34 be enforced with average speed check cameras? I doubt it.

Posted by: On the edge Jan 27 2017, 10:06 AM

Driverless vehicles....

Posted by: Berkshirelad Jan 27 2017, 10:43 AM

Judging on the accident rate, that would appear to be what we already have (without the compensating technology)

Posted by: Turin Machine Jan 27 2017, 12:07 PM

Using a handheld device, 12 month driving ban, automatically. 24 months for commercial drivers.

Posted by: On the edge Jan 27 2017, 03:47 PM

Very good!

(Ironic really, even the first trials some years ago worked far better than vehicles controlled by wetware!)

Posted by: Biker1 Jan 27 2017, 04:04 PM

Even more extreme!
But a serious point.
It's a compromise between safety and the need to get people / goods around in reasonable time.
Time versus safety. What's the acceptable level?

Posted by: Biker1 Jan 27 2017, 04:05 PM

No, but it should be!
I think at present it's £200 and 6 points?

Posted by: Turin Machine Jan 27 2017, 04:47 PM

Sorry, should have been USING.since edited. It should be a real deterrent not something you just shrug off.

Posted by: Turin Machine Jan 27 2017, 04:50 PM

I drove a semi autonomous car last year bloody frightening! The feeling when you take your hands off the wheel just didn't have the confidence it would do the right thing. Disconcerting much

Posted by: On the edge Jan 27 2017, 05:51 PM

Was that part of the experiment?

The cross over is an issue. A bit like the IT change from green screen and keyboard to icons and mouse - the youngsters catch on fastest. Full automation you won't notice of course.

Posted by: Turin Machine Jan 27 2017, 06:12 PM

Test drive in the new Mercedes E class. Still have to put some input in every sixty seconds to prevent the alarms going off to comply with the law. But to all intent its self driving.

Posted by: On the edge Jan 27 2017, 10:06 PM

Well, at least what is avaliable today.

Posted by: Turin Machine Jan 27 2017, 11:00 PM

Its all available, but the law states the driver must retain control at all times, the rest is just software. The new BMW could be totally self driving and I quote "when conditions are right" at the moment its downgraded to I think its class three semi autonomous just waiting for the word to go. I have in my current car, Active cruise with stop and go in town, lane departure warning and correction, speed sign recognition, pre sense, and a host of other tech, and that is sooo last year! The futures here, in a showroom, go buy.

Posted by: On the edge Jan 28 2017, 06:42 AM

...when conditions are right.

Once we can get the right legal and regulatory set in place, and can properly re-deifine what 'driver retain control' actually means real innovation begins.

Posted by: Turin Machine Jan 28 2017, 06:54 AM

One of the problems that face it is how will it work? In the case of the car I drove it worked by seeing the white line road markings an positioned itself on the road using them whilst also 'looking' for obstructions etc. Fine, 'till as so often happens the road markings disappear. The other method appears to use mapping, requiring pinpoint accuracy. Don't see how in practice this will work though. All of this at a time when your car already has more code than a Boing 787, last count was around 150 million lines, and I still can't stop windows from crashing. Puzzled much.

Posted by: Biker1 Feb 27 2017, 08:33 AM

An item on South Today this morning was a report commissioned by the BBC by a group called "Road Safety Analysis" came to the conclusion that the road was "No more dangerous than any other of the same type". I cannot find any link to this report as of yet and the RSA website appears to be down but told you so springs to mind?

Posted by: blackdog Feb 27 2017, 10:41 AM

There does seem to be a significant increase in serious accidents on major roads - the A34 is closed ever more frequently, but so is the M4. I guess the issue may well be reflected nationally.

Posted by: On the edge Feb 27 2017, 11:48 AM

Quite apart from the conclusion, this is interesting. Why is the public broadcaster BBC commissioning independent reports like this? The public Department of Transport are responsible for doing just that. Presumably in spite of all the bogus squealing the BBC is like local government, by no means short of money.

Posted by: Turin Machine Mar 26 2017, 10:22 AM

Ah yes, wonderful Under and self driving cars are the answer to safety concerns everywhere, or are they? (Cue dramatic intro music)!

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-uber-tech-crash-idUSKBN16W0UZ

Ta daa!!

Posted by: blackdog Mar 26 2017, 10:40 AM

So self-drivering car driving correctly through a junction was hit by a human-driven car driving badly. This just makes the case for driverless cars ever stronger.

Posted by: Turin Machine Mar 26 2017, 10:48 AM

I think the point is that the self driving nugget couldn't respond to an event it wasn't expecting, ie the real world.

Posted by: blackdog Mar 26 2017, 11:00 AM

Human driven cars are pretty useless at responding to unexpected events too - it must be impossible to avoid every idiot driver whether the innocent party is human or self driven. The point is that the crash was caused by a human driving a car. If the other car had been self-driven there would have been no crash.

Posted by: je suis Charlie Mar 26 2017, 12:01 PM

In your opinion

Posted by: blackdog Mar 26 2017, 12:21 PM

In my opinion a self driven car would obey the rules of the road and give way when appropriate.

In the Arizona police's opinion: Initial police reports suggest the collision was caused by a person who failed to give way to the self-driving car rather than a malfunction by the Uber vehicle. {https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/mar/26/uber-suspends-self-driving-cars-arizona-crash-volvo-suv}

Posted by: je suis Charlie Mar 26 2017, 04:49 PM

Bit to notice, "reports suggest" no facts, no evidence, more opinion.

Posted by: Cognosco Mar 26 2017, 04:57 PM

It's like everything else, it all works until someone breaks the rules!

Queuing works until someone tries to push in etc.

Unless all cars are driver less then I fail to see how the roads will cope?
It's like at the moment you have to allow for the Lycra louts on bikes ignoring traffic signage and red lights.
If driver less cars have to give way to all those who are breaking the rules then they are not going to travel far very are they?

Posted by: blackdog Mar 26 2017, 06:12 PM

Opinions are not always wrong.

Posted by: Turin Machine Mar 26 2017, 06:15 PM

Nor indeed are they always right. Interesting to see they're using Volvos for it though. Must one heck of an impact to put an XC 90 on its side.