I is confuzed

Why? I appreciate the need for limits, even though I occasionally transgress. If our limits were higher people would still transgress. So we still need limits.

But you are happy for people to judge what a safe speed is below the limit?
Even though it could be a small fraction of that limit?

Not sure happy’s the right word – maybe say that I don’t have a lot of choice but to accept it… 🙂 What I AM happy with, though, is that if they DO make a misjudgement at a speed lower than the posted limit, the consequences will be less severe than if they made a misjudgement at a speed over the posted limit.

Speed is just a single metric with which people judge how good a driver you are.

If I drive down the A1, on a clear day, paying good attention at 85mph when there’s little to no traffic and I keep good distance to other vehicles am I worse driver than someone going 29 in a 30 limit whilst tired, paying little attention and thinking about what they’ll cook for tea?

We can’t measure attentiveness with a camera on the side of the road. So we measure speed.

People get caught by a camera that makes no judgement on HOW they’re driving, just how fast.

As I said earlier – I got nabbed doing 46 in a 40 limit. It was a dual carriageway and I was pretty much the only vehicle on the road. It was dry, daylight and out of rush hour. And there are no pathways or houses anywhere near it.

The van was on an overpass and was not clearly visible to me.

I agree totally that the faster you go the nastier an accident will be. But what was I going to hit? Thin air.

This is the problem. It is possible to drive fast and safe. But if you think like a speed camera you won’t ever differentiate between sticking to a limit and being safe whatever your speed.

My ex-wife would NEVER exceed the speed limit. But she was an appalling driver. Almost no-one in her family would get in a car with her, and I hated it when she drove.

Inarguable. But part of the problem is, how do you judge quality of driving? Did your ex-wife consider herself a scary driver? Do any of us? Lots of people on here saying they don’t see a problem with doing 85 on a clear road on a clear day (me included) – are we actualyl qualified to make that judgement? None of us would do it if we were scared, or felt at risk of an accident, and I bet you could say that of every driver on earth right up to the point of things going out of control.

Are cameras there to measure “quality” of driving? Or are they there as a safety measure because drving quickly is more dangerous than driving slowly?

pondo – Member

Not sure happy’s the right word – maybe say that I don’t have a lot of choice but to accept it… What I AM happy with, though, is that if they DO make a misjudgement at a speed lower than the posted limit, the consequences will be less severe than if they made a misjudgement at a speed over the posted limit.

No one is disagreeing with simple physics, but prevention is better than cure. Give people an absolute maximum speed and they will drive at that speed, whether safe or not.
Make people think about what is a safe speed to drive at, and they will drive at a safe speed.

If I drive down the A1, on a clear day, paying good attention at 85mph when there’s little to no traffic and I keep good distance to other vehicles am I worse driver than someone going 29 in a 30 limit whilst tired, paying little attention and thinking about what they’ll cook for tea?

Are those really the only two options?

It is possible to drive fast and safe.

It is, but in almost all circumstances you’d be safer going slower.

(Unless you’re trying to outrun a volcano or something)

if you think like a speed camera you won’t ever differentiate between sticking to a limit and being safe whatever your speed.

Why does obeying the law mean you are “thinking like a speed camera”?

You make it sound as if it is impossible to obey the speed limit and still have an independent thought about what is an appropriate speed.

But what was I going to hit? Thin air

That’s really not the point. You were speeding, end of.

In the future maybe we’ll have intelligent computer systems that’ll be able to assess how safe we are and penalise you based on that – then maybe we’ll be able to abolish absolute speed limits. But as of now, we’re not.

This is about law, and you have to have absolute measureable facts in law, otherwise people will be able to wriggle out of it.

Just learn to stick to the speed limit. It really isn’t hard.

This is about law, and you have to have absolute measureable facts in law

That really isn’t true.

No one is disagreeing with simple physics, but prevention is better than cure.

100% agree with that.

Give people an absolute maximum speed and they will drive at that speed, whether safe or not.

Ah – now that I’d argue with! 🙂 Common experience suggests that a sizeable percentage of drivers do not stick to speed limits – I do miles down the M40 every day, if I sit at 70 I’ll be mostly in the inside two lanes, and the outside lane will be nose-to-tail with people going quicker.

Make people think about what is a safe speed to drive at, and they will drive at a safe speed.

Yep, 100% agree with that, too.

That really isn’t true.

It’s true for this topic, the speed thing, isn’t it?

molgrips – Member

But what was I going to hit? Thin air

That’s really not the point. You were speeding, end of.

In the future maybe we’ll have intelligent computer systems that’ll be able to assess how safe we are and penalise you based on that – then maybe we’ll be able to abolish absolute speed limits. But as of now, we’re not.

This is about law, and you have to have absolute measureable facts in law, otherwise people will be able to wriggle out of it.

Not true. If you are caught by a person and not a camera, you are able to explain your situation and perhaps get away with ‘words of advice’; a bit of a ticking off and ‘don’t do it again, there’s a good fella’.

A camera cannot do this, so it cannot distinguish between someone doing 35 in a 30 who has assessed the situation, looked at the weather conditions, the time of day, the road surface, knows the condition of his car inside out etc. and someone who does 35 in a 30 regardless of weather, road surface, the fact that 3 of their tyres are bald, there is a group of young children messing around on the pavement etc…

Both are breaking the law by the same amount, but the risk is very different.

Right, so why would the person doing 35 be doing 35, when they know it’s a 30?

molgrips – Member
Right, so why would the person doing 35 be doing 35, when they know it’s a 30?

Dunno.

Taking their sick daughter to the hospital?
Late home for tea?
Stuck in traffic earlier and trying to make up some time?
Fish and chips on the passenger seat getting cold?
Needs a wee and doesn’t want to do it illegally at the side of the road?
Late for a flight?

As there are so many ‘experts’ on this subject has anyone been involved with a community speed watch program? We have a speeding problem through the village so I’m wondering do they work, or if you get a slapped wrist through the post do you just ignore it?

Ah – now that I’d argue with!

Speed governed lorry drivers.

Checkmate! 😆

Pembo – Member

As there are so many ‘experts’ on this subject has anyone been involved with a community speed watch program? We have a speeding problem through the village so I’m wondering do they work, or if you get a slapped wrist through the post do you just ignore it?

I ignored the one I got (36 in a 30).
At the time I was in a gear with a maximum speed of 30mph, verified by GPS and my speedometer’s known inaccuracy.

Being juvenile is not a crime. 😳

Speed governed lorry drivers.

Checkmate!
Ah – sorry, thought you meant absolute speed limit as an absolute speed limit (like 70 on a motorway), rather than a speed-governing device. Well – however you want to work it. 🙂

It seems to me that, on any given stretch of road, in any given conditions, the faster you drive, the more likely you are to be involved in an accident, and the worse the consequences will be for you and whatever you hit.

Red flag with that?

I just think we’re arguing about different things.

That started way back in the thread when you attempted to argue that breaking a speed limit (any speed limit no matter how inappropriate) makes somebody a bad driver – bad enough that they shouldn’t be on the road if going on a course didn’t change their driving habits. Then when that assertion was challenged, you and others came out with a load of strawmen.

molgrips – Member
That’s really not the point. You were speeding, end of.

In the future maybe we’ll have intelligent computer systems that’ll be able to assess how safe we are and penalise you based on that – then maybe we’ll be able to abolish absolute speed limits. But as of now, we’re not.

This is about law, and you have to have absolute measurable facts in law, otherwise people will be able to wriggle out of it.

Just learn to stick to the speed limit. It really isn’t hard.

Molgrips, do you actually believe this or are you just trolling? I really can’t tell.

Red flag with that?

I stand by it – reaction times are the same no matter what speed you’re travelling at, yeah? Whereas the speed of reaction required to respond to what’s in front of you is reduced the faster you’re going, on any given stretch of road. And energy is the square of velocity, so double the speed and you’ve got four times the energy/take four times longer to stop? I’m not good enough at maths to be able to say how much quicker you’ll be going when you hit something, but more energy in a crash is surely less desirable than less energy. Do tell me if I’ve got any of that wrong, but it therefore seems to me that, on any given stretch of road, in any given conditions, the faster you drive, the more likely you are to be involved in an accident, and the worse the consequences will be for you and whatever you hit. I’ll give you one exemption (driving too slowly ona busy dual carriageway or motorway is damned dangerous), but otherwise, I think it’s broadly not far off. I’m always prepared to be corrected, though.

That started way back in the thread when you attempted to argue that breaking a speed limit (any speed limit no matter how inappropriate) makes somebody a bad driver – bad enough that they shouldn’t be on the road if going on a course didn’t change their driving habits. Then when that assertion was challenged, you and others came out with a load of strawmen.

In response to –

Really? Doesn’t that depend on how good your driving standard is before going on the course? Maybe it’s those who require such a course in order to learn to drive competently who’s place on the roads should be in question.

I said –

I think by definition, if you’ve had to go on a speed awareness course, the quality of your driving is not as good as it could be, to say the least. If you take corrective advice on board, where’s the issue? If you choose to ignore the advice, then I’d say yeah, I question whether you should be on the roads.

It all ties in with people having an overoptimistic opinion of their own standard of driving, and I’m as guilty of that as the next person. The difference between me and the person who says “nah, I didn’t learn anything” is that I’m trying to change, hopefully for the better.
And yeah, I think there’s merit in that, too – if you’ve been caught speeding, go on a speed awareness course and come away thinking “nah, b0ll0cks – I ain’t changing”, then you ain’t really someone I’ll be overjoyed to share the road with.

The “arguing about different things” quote was in response to –

Its the legal speed limit and we may not like driving at its tough shit etc

Vs

80 mph is fine on the motorway

Both views apparently being held simultaneously by the same person. Its doublethink Orwell would be proud of!
Which is, I think, a different thing.