Jethro_uk wrote:

> on my SAC

Did you turn yourself in for careless driving or for reckless driving?

On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 02:20:31 +1000, JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm>
wrote:

> On 18/04/2022 03:17 pm, Jethro_uk wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 18 Apr 2022 15:07:54 +0100, JNugent wrote:
>>
>>> Is it possible to drive a motor vehicle safely, whether in an urban
>>> area
>>> or anywhere else, if the speedometer has failed? *
>> Legally possible, or simply possible ?
>
> Possible in practice.
>
> It's obvious that it isn't lawful to drive a motor vehicle whose speedo
> isn't working, so my question would and could not be about that.
>
> That would be a different question.
>
> My question was whether it is possible (for anyone, not necessarily
> everyone) to *safely* drive a motor vehicle whose speedometer has
> stopped working, as it might, for instance, between two motorway
> junctions fifteen miles apart.
>
>> Legally, I believe a car has to have a working speedometer.
>
> Yes. That fact underpins my question. It is the very reasin for it.
>
>> Although I
>> presume there is some kind of test for reasonableness to allow a driver
>> whose speedo packs up on the M1 to get to a repair.
>
> That still doesn't address the issue of whether the vehicle may be
> driven safely in such circumstances.
>
>> In terms of the mere possible it would depend on the driver. I was
>> taught
>> to drive to never look at the speedo. But that's me. It seems that there
>> are other drivers who need a speedo to tell them that 100mph down a back
>> road might be too fast.
>
> So what is the answer?
>
> Is it possible to drive safely without knowing the exact speed of the
> vehicle and having to rely upon one's estimate of it?

That isn't the only way to do it, you can also just drive at the
same speed as the other traffic, perfectly safely.

And you should be able to drive safely even when there is no speed limit
too, so you obviously don't need the speedo.

And clearly there are plenty of situations where it isnt safe to drive at
the speed limit.

On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 02:59:57 +1000, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com>
wrote:

> On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 01:20:43 +1000, Jock wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 18 Apr 2022 19:19:41 +1000, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> [quoted text muted]
>>
>> Wrong. The other alternative is that you knew what the speed limit is an
>> knew it was safe to exceed that.
>
> I am referring to legal, not actual.

But JNugent was clearly referring to actual, not legal.

> AFAIAA the law in the UK requires
> that a driver does not exceed the stated speed limit.

And it is perfectly possible to do that without a functioning speedo.

> Not that they
> "drive safely regardless of the limit".

But JNugent was clearly asking about whether it is safe
to drive without a functioning speedo. Of course it is.

> Although there was someone that brain dead on my SAC who came within
> about five seconds of being asked to leave and return to the court to let
> them know they got it wrong. After being told that it would certain be a
> first in any UK court ever, they decided not to pursue that line of
> reasoning.
>
> As an aside, I found myself driving for over 2 miles today inside a 20mph
> zone. As I say, I look forward to when they are covered by average speed
> cameras.

On 18/04/2022 17:20, JNugent wrote:
> On 18/04/2022 03:17 pm, Jethro_uk wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 18 Apr 2022 15:07:54 +0100, JNugent wrote:
>>
>>> Is it possible to drive a motor vehicle safely, whether in an urban area
>>> or anywhere else, if the speedometer has failed? *
>>
>> Legally possible, or simply possible ?
>
> Possible in practice.
>
> It's obvious that it isn't lawful to drive a motor vehicle whose speedo
> isn't working, so my question would and could not be about that.
>
> That would be a different question.
>
> My question was whether it is possible (for anyone, not necessarily
> everyone) to *safely* drive a motor vehicle whose speedometer has
> stopped working, as it might, for instance, between two motorway
> junctions fifteen miles apart.

Easily.

First, if you are used to the car, you could just drive using the tacho
- for instance, my tacho and speedo needle exactly follow each other, at
the same angle, if I am in 4th gear. I know the revs for 70 in 5th and,
in a car park, idling, feet off the pedals, in second, gives 10 mph.

Second, the speed limit is purely a legal construct and drivers are
supposed to drive at a speed that is safe for the road, the vehicle and
the conditions ... and that speed may be well below the speed limit. So
drivers are expected to use their experience and judgement to ensure
that their speed is safe, regardless of what it actually is.

>> Legally, I believe a car has to have a working speedometer.
>
> Yes. That fact underpins my question. It is the very reasin for it.

That is a different matter. A faulty speedo could cause you to break the
speed limit, without knowing, but your phone or satnav's GPS could give
you your speed anyway. However, it also would likely mean that the
odometer was not recording the miles. No-one is going to care about 10
or 20 miles missing from the total, but not fixing a speedo for a couple
of years could drastically affect the resale value of the vehicle.

On 18/04/2022 17:59, Jethro_uk wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 01:20:43 +1000, Jock wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 18 Apr 2022 19:19:41 +1000, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> [quoted text muted]
>>
>> Wrong. The other alternative is that you knew what the speed limit is an
>> knew it was safe to exceed that.
>
> I am referring to legal, not actual. AFAIAA the law in the UK requires
> that a driver does not exceed the stated speed limit. Not that they
> "drive safely regardless of the limit".
>
> Although there was someone that brain dead on my SAC who came within
> about five seconds of being asked to leave and return to the court to let
> them know they got it wrong. After being told that it would certain be a
> first in any UK court ever, they decided not to pursue that line of
> reasoning.
>
> As an aside, I found myself driving for over 2 miles today inside a 20mph
> zone. As I say, I look forward to when they are covered by average speed
> cameras.

There should be no 20 mph zones that extend that far. The evidence has
shown that long section of 20 increase the accident rate, especially for
pedestrians and they should only be used for specific, short sections,
such a outside a school.

Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Apr 2022 15:07:54 +0100, JNugent wrote:
>
>> Is it possible to drive a motor vehicle safely, whether in an urban area
>> or anywhere else, if the speedometer has failed? *
>
> Legally possible, or simply possible ?
>
> Legally, I believe a car has to have a working speedometer.

Not sure that’s correct.

If a vehicle has a speedometer then it must work. If it was never fitted
with one I don’t believe there is any legal obligation to fit one.

Of course the number of vehicles without speedometers is undoubtably tiny
and I suspect it’s probably only vehicles mainly designed for off-road use
that might fall into this category (eg. Argocats etc).

Tim

--
Please don't feed the trolls

On Mon, 18 Apr 2022 18:58:08 +0100, Steve Walker wrote:

> On 18/04/2022 17:59, Jethro_uk wrote:
>> On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 01:20:43 +1000, Jock wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 18 Apr 2022 19:19:41 +1000, Jethro_uk
>>> <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> [quoted text muted]
>>>
>>> Wrong. The other alternative is that you knew what the speed limit is
>>> an knew it was safe to exceed that.
>>
>> I am referring to legal, not actual. AFAIAA the law in the UK requires
>> that a driver does not exceed the stated speed limit. Not that they
>> "drive safely regardless of the limit".
>>
>> Although there was someone that brain dead on my SAC who came within
>> about five seconds of being asked to leave and return to the court to
>> let them know they got it wrong. After being told that it would certain
>> be a first in any UK court ever, they decided not to pursue that line
>> of reasoning.
>>
>> As an aside, I found myself driving for over 2 miles today inside a
>> 20mph zone. As I say, I look forward to when they are covered by
>> average speed cameras.
>
> There should be no 20 mph zones that extend that far. The evidence has
> shown that long section of 20 increase the accident rate, especially for
> pedestrians and they should only be used for specific, short sections,
> such a outside a school.

Leave the A38 to go down Wellington Rd, Edgbaston Park Road, Somerset
Road until you get to Metchly Park Road. 3.14km - or as close to 2 miles
as you will get.

20mph all the way.

Now *I* don't mind.

In message
<1900061858.671962566.313908.tim.downie-gmail.com@news.individual.net>,
at 08:24:39 on Mon, 18 Apr 2022, Tim+ <tim.downie@gmail.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message
>> <32056344.671957571.163342.tim.downie-gmail.com@news.individual.net>, at
>> 06:59:54 on Mon, 18 Apr 2022, Tim+ <tim.downie@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <jc3famFcn2fU1@mid.individual.net>, at 22:32:05 on Sun, 17
>>>> Apr 2022, Clive Page <usenet@page2.eu> remarked:
>>>>> On 16/04/2022 13:46, Jethro_uk wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 16 Apr 2022 09:52:21 +0000, Jeff Gaines wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think the EU system relies on GPS.
>>>>>> Not a great idea where motorways go over or under a dirt track.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't think that's the main problem, it is the poor quality of the
>>>>> databases that the GPS units use. I have two GPS units, one built into
>>>>> the car (2 years old but with a recently updated map) and one an older
>>>>> portable TomTom unit that I have also kept updated with the latest
>>>>> maps. On quite a few roads around there the two units indicate
>>>>> different speed limits, and on at least a few roads both units are
>>>>> wrong, at least according the signposts along the road, which I assume
>>>>> are always definitive.
>>>>>
>>>>> If different cars have different brands of GPS unit relying on
>>>>> different erroneous databases, so some cars are legally doing 70 mph
>>>>> while others are limited to say 40 mph, there's quite a risk of
>>>>> accidents being caused by such database errors.
>>>>
>>>> The most common change to speed limits are "stealth" ones where they
>>>> (eg) remove half a mile of 40mph road between two 30mph sections. This
>>>> catches a lot of people out (as well as satnav databases I expect) who
>>>> have been used to the middle section being 40mph all their lives.
>>>>
>>>> However, the risk when it comes to speed limiters is that a car driving
>>>> at 30mph will suddenly (and without warning from roadside signage) try
>>>> to accelerate up to 40mph.
>>>
>>> Why would any “limiter” do this? A cruise control system
>>>possibly but not a limiter.
>>
>> Because the driver will no doubt be in the habit of keeping his foot on
>> the accelerator. Especially if he's peeved his car has slowed to 30mph
>> on a road he supposed was 40mph.
>
>That’s called “driver idiocy”. If a driver ends up ramming a
>slower car in front

Surely a car with this hi-tech auto-limiter will also have forward
collision avoidance?

>because they have their foot so firmly planted to the floor and can’t
>lift off in time they should surrender their driving licence.
>
>>> Even modern cruise controls accelerate fairly gently. I used to have an
>>> old vacuum operated one that was quite fun to engage coming our of corners
>>> as it would bang the throttle full open but it was a very old bit of kit.
>>
>> What do you mean by "modern"? My 2006 design car has a cruise control
>> (which I hardly ever use, there just aren't enough long straight roads)
>> and if I engage it when travelling slower than its setting, the
>> acceleration is at least as rapid (in fact feels more rapid) than if I
>> were to floor the accelerator.
>
>2006 = 15/16 years old design.

It's not that old really. The first car I can remember having a limiter
was a 1982 model BMW. Really simple to use, and no car I've had since
was as convenient (either too complicated or no limiter feature at all).

>All the cars we’ve had with CC in the last 10 years have accelerated up to
>the set speed below maximum acceleration possible.

Those are models introduced since 2012, presumably?
--
Roland Perry

In message <t3k8rh$2rg$2@dont-email.me>, at 18:58:08 on Mon, 18 Apr
2022, Steve Walker <steve@walker-family.me.uk> remarked:
>On 18/04/2022 17:59, Jethro_uk wrote:
>> On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 01:20:43 +1000, Jock wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 18 Apr 2022 19:19:41 +1000, Jethro_uk
>>><jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> [quoted text muted]
>>>
>>> Wrong. The other alternative is that you knew what the speed limit is an
>>> knew it was safe to exceed that.

>> I am referring to legal, not actual. AFAIAA the law in the UK
>>requires that a driver does not exceed the stated speed limit. Not
>>that they "drive safely regardless of the limit".

>> Although there was someone that brain dead on my SAC who came within
>> about five seconds of being asked to leave and return to the court to let
>> them know they got it wrong. After being told that it would certain be a
>> first in any UK court ever, they decided not to pursue that line of
>> reasoning.

>> As an aside, I found myself driving for over 2 miles today inside a
>>20mph zone. As I say, I look forward to when they are covered by
>>average speed cameras.
>
>There should be no 20 mph zones that extend that far. The evidence has
>shown that long section of 20 increase the accident rate, especially
>for pedestrians and they should only be used for specific, short
>sections, such a outside a school.

Those days are long gone. Many Cities (and London Boroughs) have
extensive 20mph zones.
--
Roland Perry

On Wed, 20 Apr 2022 15:39:13 +1000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
wrote:

> In message
> <1900061858.671962566.313908.tim.downie-gmail.com@news.individual.net>,
> at 08:24:39 on Mon, 18 Apr 2022, Tim+ <tim.downie@gmail.com> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message
>>> <32056344.671957571.163342.tim.downie-gmail.com@news.individual.net>,
>>> at
>>> 06:59:54 on Mon, 18 Apr 2022, Tim+ <tim.downie@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <jc3famFcn2fU1@mid.individual.net>, at 22:32:05 on Sun, 17
>>>>> Apr 2022, Clive Page <usenet@page2.eu> remarked:
>>>>>> On 16/04/2022 13:46, Jethro_uk wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sat, 16 Apr 2022 09:52:21 +0000, Jeff Gaines wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I think the EU system relies on GPS.
>>>>>>> Not a great idea where motorways go over or under a dirt track.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't think that's the main problem, it is the poor quality of the
>>>>>> databases that the GPS units use. I have two GPS units, one built
>>>>>> into
>>>>>> the car (2 years old but with a recently updated map) and one an
>>>>>> older
>>>>>> portable TomTom unit that I have also kept updated with the latest
>>>>>> maps. On quite a few roads around there the two units indicate
>>>>>> different speed limits, and on at least a few roads both units are
>>>>>> wrong, at least according the signposts along the road, which I
>>>>>> assume
>>>>>> are always definitive.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If different cars have different brands of GPS unit relying on
>>>>>> different erroneous databases, so some cars are legally doing 70 mph
>>>>>> while others are limited to say 40 mph, there's quite a risk of
>>>>>> accidents being caused by such database errors.
>>>>>
>>>>> The most common change to speed limits are "stealth" ones where they
>>>>> (eg) remove half a mile of 40mph road between two 30mph sections.
>>>>> This
>>>>> catches a lot of people out (as well as satnav databases I expect)
>>>>> who
>>>>> have been used to the middle section being 40mph all their lives.
>>>>>
>>>>> However, the risk when it comes to speed limiters is that a car
>>>>> driving
>>>>> at 30mph will suddenly (and without warning from roadside signage)
>>>>> try
>>>>> to accelerate up to 40mph.
>>>>
>>>> Why would any “limiter” do this? A cruise control system possibly
>>>> but not a limiter.
>>>
>>> Because the driver will no doubt be in the habit of keeping his foot on
>>> the accelerator. Especially if he's peeved his car has slowed to 30mph
>>> on a road he supposed was 40mph.
>>
>> That’s called “driver idiocy”. If a driver ends up ramming a slower
>> car in front
>
> Surely a car with this hi-tech auto-limiter will also have forward
> collision avoidance?

And not just forward collision avoidance, cruise controls have had
radar tracking and a specified distance behind the car in front for
more than a decade now.

>> because they have their foot so firmly planted to the floor and can’t
>> lift off in time they should surrender their driving licence.
>>
>>>> Even modern cruise controls accelerate fairly gently. I used to have
>>>> an
>>>> old vacuum operated one that was quite fun to engage coming our of
>>>> corners
>>>> as it would bang the throttle full open but it was a very old bit of
>>>> kit.
>>>
>>> What do you mean by "modern"? My 2006 design car has a cruise control
>>> (which I hardly ever use, there just aren't enough long straight roads)
>>> and if I engage it when travelling slower than its setting, the
>>> acceleration is at least as rapid (in fact feels more rapid) than if I
>>> were to floor the accelerator.
>>
>> 2006 = 15/16 years old design.
>
> It's not that old really. The first car I can remember having a limiter
> was a 1982 model BMW. Really simple to use, and no car I've had since
> was as convenient (either too complicated or no limiter feature at all).
>
>> All the cars we’ve had with CC in the last 10 years have accelerated up
>> to
>> the set speed below maximum acceleration possible.
>
> Those are models introduced since 2012, presumably?

On Wed, 20 Apr 2022 06:39:13 +0100, Roland Perry wrote:

> Surely a car with this hi-tech auto-limiter will also have forward
> collision avoidance?

Mine has the one and not the other. They are separate options, and the CA
is part of a more expensive package.

--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me £1 a message.
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

In message <jc9s40FrbviU2@mid.individual.net>, at 07:47:12 on Wed, 20
Apr 2022, Bob Eager <news0009@eager.cx> remarked:
>On Wed, 20 Apr 2022 06:39:13 +0100, Roland Perry wrote:
>
>> Surely a car with this hi-tech auto-limiter will also have forward
>> collision avoidance?
>
>Mine has the one and not the other. They are separate options, and the CA
>is part of a more expensive package.

You've got a GPS linked auto-limiter?

--
Roland Perry

On Wed, 20 Apr 2022 12:02:29 +0100, Roland Perry wrote:

> In message <jc9s40FrbviU2@mid.individual.net>, at 07:47:12 on Wed, 20
> Apr 2022, Bob Eager <news0009@eager.cx> remarked:
>>On Wed, 20 Apr 2022 06:39:13 +0100, Roland Perry wrote:
>>
>>> Surely a car with this hi-tech auto-limiter will also have forward
>>> collision avoidance?
>>
>>Mine has the one and not the other. They are separate options, and the
>>CA is part of a more expensive package.
>
> You've got a GPS linked auto-limiter?

Probably not. Seems to be traffix sign linked. But I am never quite sure.

--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me £1 a message.
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

Bob Eager wrote:

> Roland Perry wrote:
>
>> Bob Eager wrote:
>>
>>> Roland Perry wrote:
>>>
>>>> Surely a car with this hi-tech auto-limiter will also have forward
>>>> collision avoidance?
>>>
>>> Mine has the one and not the other. They are separate options, and the
>>> CA is part of a more expensive package.
>>
>> You've got a GPS linked auto-limiter?
>
> Probably not. Seems to be traffix sign linked. But I am never quite sure.

My car has a front-mounted camera, it doesn't read speed signs (but I think I
could enable that via VCDS and the OBD-II port) it has a manually set speed
limiter, as well as manually set cruise control.

The camera has high/medium/low/off settings for "hazard detection", too many
times it went BEEP! and displayed an exclamation mark on the dashboard which was
a distraction from whatever supposed hazard it has detected, which I had always
seen before it, and decided was not a real hazard anyway, so I gradually turned
it down to lower and lower settings.

Then one day it tried to plant my face into the windscreen for a "non hazard" so
it's now turned off.

On 20/04/2022 06:47, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <t3k8rh$2rg$2@dont-email.me>, at 18:58:08 on Mon, 18 Apr
> 2022, Steve Walker <steve@walker-family.me.uk> remarked:
>> On 18/04/2022 17:59, Jethro_uk wrote:
>>> On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 01:20:43 +1000, Jock wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 18 Apr 2022 19:19:41 +1000, Jethro_uk
>>>> <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> [quoted text muted]
>>>>
>>>> Wrong. The other alternative is that you knew what the speed limit
>>>> is an
>>>> knew it was safe to exceed that.
>
>>>  I am referring to legal, not actual. AFAIAA the law in the UK
>>> requires  that a driver does not exceed the stated speed limit. Not
>>> that they  "drive safely regardless of the limit".
>
>>>  Although there was someone that brain dead on my SAC who came within
>>> about five seconds of being asked to leave and return to the court to
>>> let
>>> them know they got it wrong. After being told that it would certain be a
>>> first in any UK court ever, they decided not to pursue that line of
>>> reasoning.
>
>>>  As an aside, I found myself driving for over 2 miles today inside a
>>> 20mph  zone. As I say, I look forward to when they are covered by
>>> average speed  cameras.
>>
>> There should be no 20 mph zones that extend that far. The evidence has
>> shown that long section of 20 increase the accident rate, especially
>> for pedestrians and they should only be used for specific, short
>> sections, such a outside a school.
>
> Those days are long gone. Many Cities (and London Boroughs) have
> extensive 20mph zones.

Yes. Manchester put one in place and just as they finished, the research
came back that showed that they *increased* accidents. They refuse to
remove the 20 limits, as they "can't afford it". Personally I'd
surcharge the people who authorised the implementation in the first
place, without the evidence to back it up, and use that money to remove it.

On 18/04/2022 20:38, Tim+ wrote:
> Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 18 Apr 2022 15:07:54 +0100, JNugent wrote:
>>
>>> Is it possible to drive a motor vehicle safely, whether in an urban area
>>> or anywhere else, if the speedometer has failed? *
>>
>> Legally possible, or simply possible ?
>>
>> Legally, I believe a car has to have a working speedometer.
>
> Not sure that’s correct.
>
> If a vehicle has a speedometer then it must work. If it was never fitted
> with one I don’t believe there is any legal obligation to fit one.
>
> Of course the number of vehicles without speedometers is undoubtably tiny
> and I suspect it’s probably only vehicles mainly designed for off-road use
> that might fall into this category (eg. Argocats etc).
>
> Tim
>
Some road legal tractors don't have a speedo.

Bill

In message <jcatkbFppgaU1@mid.individual.net>, williamwright
<wrightsaerials@f2s.com> writes
>On 18/04/2022 20:38, Tim+ wrote:
>> Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 18 Apr 2022 15:07:54 +0100, JNugent wrote:
>>>
>>>> Is it possible to drive a motor vehicle safely, whether in an urban area
>>>> or anywhere else, if the speedometer has failed? *
>>>
>>> Legally possible, or simply possible ?
>>>
>>> Legally, I believe a car has to have a working speedometer.
>> Not sure that’s correct.
>> If a vehicle has a speedometer then it must work. If it was never
>>fitted
>> with one I don’t believe there is any legal obligation to fit one.
>> Of course the number of vehicles without speedometers is undoubtably
>>tiny
>> and I suspect it’s probably only vehicles mainly designed for off-road use
>> that might fall into this category (eg. Argocats etc).
>> Tim
>>
>Some road legal tractors don't have a speedo.

Indeed. Rarely capable of more than 18mph though.

My David Brown has a tachometer and an *in cab* chart to calculate road
speed (12 forward gears).

--
Tim Lamb

Jethro_uk wrote:

> JNugent wrote:
>
>> Is it possible to drive a motor vehicle safely, whether in an urban area
>> or anywhere else, if the speedometer has failed? *
>
> Legally possible, or simply possible ?
> Legally, I believe a car has to have a working speedometer.

What if the speedo is broken, but the car's satnav can indicate whether or not
you're exceeding the limit? What if a phone app can display the GPS derived
speed on the car's screen?

On Thu, 21 Apr 2022 06:59:40 +0100, Andy Burns wrote:

> Jethro_uk wrote:
>
>> JNugent wrote:
>>
>>> Is it possible to drive a motor vehicle safely, whether in an urban
>>> area or anywhere else, if the speedometer has failed? *
>>
>> Legally possible, or simply possible ?
>> Legally, I believe a car has to have a working speedometer.
>
> What if the speedo is broken, but the car's satnav can indicate whether
> or not you're exceeding the limit? What if a phone app can display the
> GPS derived speed on the car's screen?

What if, indeed ?

Despite their improved accuracy. I don't believe additional GPS devices
can be counted as "speedometers" for the purposes of the legislation.

Steve Walker <steve@walker-family.me.uk> wrote:
> Yes. Manchester put one in place and just as they finished, the research
> came back that showed that they *increased* accidents. They refuse to
> remove the 20 limits, as they "can't afford it". Personally I'd
> surcharge the people who authorised the implementation in the first
> place, without the evidence to back it up, and use that money to remove it.

Surely even if there were "more accidents", it may be that given the
presumably lower speeds involved, the amount or severity of any
injuries sustained -- or the damaged caused -- may have been lesser.
So I'm not sure that "number of accidents" is the correct criteria.

#Paul

On 23 Apr 2022 at 19:34:09 BST, #Paul <#Paul> wrote:

> Steve Walker <steve@walker-family.me.uk> wrote:
>> Yes. Manchester put one in place and just as they finished, the research
>> came back that showed that they *increased* accidents. They refuse to
>> remove the 20 limits, as they "can't afford it". Personally I'd
>> surcharge the people who authorised the implementation in the first
>> place, without the evidence to back it up, and use that money to remove it.
>
> Surely even if there were "more accidents", it may be that given the
> presumably lower speeds involved, the amount or severity of any
> injuries sustained -- or the damaged caused -- may have been lesser.
> So I'm not sure that "number of accidents" is the correct criteria.

criterion.

--
"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence."
-- Christopher Hitchens

On 23/04/2022 19:34, #Paul wrote:
> Steve Walker <steve@walker-family.me.uk> wrote:
>> Yes. Manchester put one in place and just as they finished, the research
>> came back that showed that they *increased* accidents. They refuse to
>> remove the 20 limits, as they "can't afford it". Personally I'd
>> surcharge the people who authorised the implementation in the first
>> place, without the evidence to back it up, and use that money to remove it.
>
> Surely even if there were "more accidents", it may be that given the
> presumably lower speeds involved, the amount or severity of any
> injuries sustained -- or the damaged caused -- may have been lesser.
> So I'm not sure that "number of accidents" is the correct criteria.

The figures quoted just as the Manchester scheme was completed showed
that the death rate was higher.

In message <t44gt6$7qj$1@dont-email.me>, at 22:53:42 on Sun, 24 Apr
2022, Steve Walker <steve@walker-family.me.uk> remarked:
>On 23/04/2022 19:34, #Paul wrote:
>> Steve Walker <steve@walker-family.me.uk> wrote:

>>> Yes. Manchester put one in place and just as they finished, the research
>>> came back that showed that they *increased* accidents. They refuse to
>>> remove the 20 limits, as they "can't afford it". Personally I'd
>>> surcharge the people who authorised the implementation in the first
>>> place, without the evidence to back it up, and use that money to remove it.

>> Surely even if there were "more accidents", it may be that given the
>> presumably lower speeds involved, the amount or severity of any
>> injuries sustained -- or the damaged caused -- may have been lesser.
>> So I'm not sure that "number of accidents" is the correct criteria.
>
>The figures quoted just as the Manchester scheme was completed showed
>that the death rate was higher.

How much of that was pedestrians taking greater risk because the traffic
was flowing more slowly (and quite likely more bunched together)?
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <t44gt6$7qj$1@dont-email.me>, at 22:53:42 on Sun, 24 Apr
> 2022, Steve Walker <steve@walker-family.me.uk> remarked:
>>On 23/04/2022 19:34, #Paul wrote:
>>> Steve Walker <steve@walker-family.me.uk> wrote:
>
>>>> Yes. Manchester put one in place and just as they finished, the research
>>>> came back that showed that they *increased* accidents. They refuse to
>>>> remove the 20 limits, as they "can't afford it". Personally I'd
>>>> surcharge the people who authorised the implementation in the first
>>>> place, without the evidence to back it up, and use that money to remove it.
>
>>> Surely even if there were "more accidents", it may be that given the
>>> presumably lower speeds involved, the amount or severity of any
>>> injuries sustained -- or the damaged caused -- may have been lesser.
>>> So I'm not sure that "number of accidents" is the correct criteria.
>>
>>The figures quoted just as the Manchester scheme was completed showed
>>that the death rate was higher.
>
> How much of that was pedestrians taking greater risk because the traffic
> was flowing more slowly (and quite likely more bunched together)?

It would be an interesting thing to unpack, I think. You could easily
propose quite a lot of reasons why (or why not) this might have happened
in spite of (or because of) the changes. Perhaps because of pedestrian
or driver behaviour - and maybe because of changes in outlier behaviour
rather than average behaviour. Or maybe even some background reason not
obviously related to the speed limit.

You might, for example, imagine that drivers mostly ignored the new
limits, and only slowed down by an average of less than 1mph, but
pedestrians still felt safer and crossed more assertively, leading
to more relatively more accidents against a background of (faster)
decreasing accident rates elsewhere. If so, would the 20mph scheme
be the thing that was to blame?

#Paul

On 21/04/2022 06:59 am, Andy Burns wrote:

> Jethro_uk wrote:
>> JNugent wrote:
>>
>>> Is it possible to drive a motor vehicle safely, whether in an urban area
>>> or anywhere else, if the speedometer has failed? *
>>
>> Legally possible, or simply possible ?
>> Legally, I believe a car has to have a working speedometer.
>
> What if the speedo is broken, but the car's satnav can indicate whether
> or not you're exceeding the limit?  What if a phone app can display the
> GPS derived speed on the car's screen?

Some satnavs do display road speed. Some don't.

But there is a website (maybe more than one) you can go to (eg, on a
mobile phone) which tells you how fast you are travelling. Put the phone
on a cradle and in effect, it's a speedometer. Useful, among other
things, for checking the accuracy of the car's speedo.