I thought what a waste of viewers time, the went all out on the speeding aspect, with zero thought to any other influencing factors.
The yank clip where the police car was hit, "it was down to a speeding driver", no it's because some twat was driving on the wrong side of the road and hit the parked police car, surely if he's stupid enough to drive on the wrong side he's still going to hit the police car.
I liked the copper on the bridge, the rules state they must observe the car they suspect of speeding for a minimum distance on a straight flat level road for 200 metres PRIOR to confirming the suspicion of speeding using the gun, this was clearly not straight level and flat, so was being used as primary evidence.
They missed the whole point in my view, what could have been an excellent programme was completely overdone, sorry but since the 70mph limit was introduced in 1965, due to some AC cars crashing at 180mph in the fog, it was blamed on Barbara Castle, although it was actually down to Tom Fraser who was the roads minister at the time, originally a temp measure, it was later confirmed as permanent in 67 by which time Barbara Castle was roads minister, a NON DRIVER by the way, the 70 limit applied to ALL derestricted roads not just motorways but rural roads too.
The idiot overtaking at a junction causing such horrific injuries may still have overtaken the vehicle that pulled out without first ascertaining that it was safe to do so, still giving a potential 60 mph impact, would the outcome have been different I don't know.
No reference to braking distances in real world terms, or LEGAL speeding, imagine if speed cameras could not differentiate between a 1 ton car and a 48 ton truck, in a 60 a truck on ab class road can do 40mph, but can with immunity go through a speed camera t 60 and not get flashed, whereas a car at 70mph would, what's more dangerous ?
Since the 70 mph limit was brought in tyres brakes suspension etc have all improved beyond recognition, from 70mph a moggy takes 377ft on 1965 brake shoes, as it did at the time, a equivalent car stops in around 1/3 the distance.
Why are trucks so ineffectively braked in comparison to cars, maybe the driver with a 48 ton load comprising steel pipes 6 feet away from him at head height knows newtons law of motion and wouldn't like it to stop as quick.
Tests done by rospa show a fully laden artic and a car both doing 30mph then emergency braking the artic is till doing 20mph when the car has stopped.
A daf crew cab(laden) takes 34.62 metres to stop from 45mph, a 1.3 ton picasso 18 metres, a tavern(apc)(with abs) 33.3, but only weighs 6.7 tons, from 30mph, iveco combo laden 27 metres, a mondeo 7.14.
All are actual figures obtained at Leconfield, army driver training place.
I think education is the key, there is zero comparison in my view of a car doing 60mph in a 30 to a car doing 100 in a 70, can't remember the last time I saw a car coming towards me on the motorway on my side of the road, or having side turnings where people pull out and head towards you, all going the same way surely must be safer, that travelling towards each other ?
Looking at Germany where 80% is unrestricted on the autobahns, the accident/fatality rate is far better than the uk(on autobahns+motorways).
Personally I think the limit in the uk should be 85, more police should be on the road, instead of milking the car driver for revenue with cameras etc, why not plod back on the beat/roads where they can catch the drink driver, mobile phone user, red light jumper etc etc.
Odd how some councils are turning off the cameras as well now, and how a few have seen accidents RISE since installations maybe too much speedo watching for that 1mph over fine and points ?
Accident rates were FALLING prior to the speed cameras inception, the rate of decline of accidents SLOWED since the introduction, ie good old motorist as a whole were getting better, but then suddenly something seemed to distract their attention.
tabetha