[Closed] Can you challenge over zealous speed limits?

poly - Member

The ones most likely to have a serious outcome?

A tiny fraction of the ones that have a serious outcome (KSIs).
I thought my point was clear...

molgrips - Member

And in how many does more speed make the consequences worse?

(All of them)

So... we... shouldn't... drive...?

NOW YOU'RE GETTING IT!!! 😀
GET ORFFF MOI ROADS!!!

I wonder if there are any stats to show the number of accidents avoided because of speed. You know the ones where a muppet would have t-boned you on a roundabout but a heavy does of right foot has got you out of trouble. Or being able to accelerate on the motorway has got you away from the muppet who would have hit you in their mirrorless lane change.

Almost never, in my experience.

However I have avoided many many accidents because my speed was conservative and I was able to slow down in time.

But that's driving to the conditions, which everyone is in favour of. The difference is that the people who like driving fast think that all drivers are sensible and responsible enough to make a good choice on their own.

I've no idea where on earth they get that idea from tbh. It's almost as if they are scrabbling around for justification for their own desires...

For what it's worth, I like driving fast. But I don't do it.

Almost never, in my experience.

However I have avoided many many accidents because my speed was conservative and I was able to slow down in time.

Well I think it's less than a couple of weeks since the muppet in the wrong lane on the roundabout tried to hit me. I was driving with the flow, there was a truck behind me which would have been a bit nasty if I had braked, leaving the only option of caning it. The prick who nearly hit me wasn't driving with excessive speed either.
I feel that it's idiots who have accidents and not necessarily faster drivers.
Make of that what you will.

We'll prosecute a driver for travelling 4mph over an arbitrary limit without incident, yet we won't prosecute a driver who is so inattentive that they actually cause a collision.

Do you think that's a deliberate decision?

It's not. The reason is that speed is easy to measure, but attentiveness is not. We have a rule that says you must not go faster than the limit. This is very obviously needed, because otherwise people would drive much too fast with impunity.

We can't prosecute people for simply not paying attention - thats impossible. When accidents are caused, then they go to court, and they go through a completely different process with different results. It's how the justice system works, unfortunately. It is NOT a conscious decision to prioritise speed over paying attention. That's absurd.

We prosecute people for going 4mph over a speed limit (which is not arbitrary, by the way) because it's easy. But it's equally easy to stay under the speed limit. You, and others, are simply pissing and moaning because you are impatient and want to drive faster.

It is absoultely 100% definitively safer to go slower, because there is less energy involed. It's also more pleasant for everyone else on the road, and uses up fewer natural resources and generates less pollution. This is irrefutable. But of course, too slow and it'll take too long to get places. So we strike a balance, and attempt to enforce consitstent behaviour. We have to work this way, we have no other choice.

You don't have a leg to stand on I'm afraid. Your main argument seems to be that either the police care more about speed than whether or not you are paying attention; or that by having speed limits it somehow encourages people not to pay attemtion. I can't accept either of those two arguments. Paying attention is something people do, or don't do, independent of how fast they feel comfortable driving.

I feel that it's idiots who have accidents and not necessarily faster drivers.

I agree with that. Let me be clear - I am not saying that speed is the main cause of accidents, and that slow drivers are always safer drivers.

Roll on driverless cars.

Surely if you get done for speeding by a parked car/van or a camera you HAVE been inattentive? It's not like they're subtly camouflaged!

And before molgrips jumps in to point out that speed will make any accident worse, think about what a small % of accidents that would affect.

Every one involving a pedestrian or cyclist.

Roll on driverless cars.

Pointless unless everyone is in them, and whilst not implausible that won't happen in your kids' lifetime.

Surely if you get done for speeding by a parked car/van or a camera you HAVE been inattentive? It's not like they're subtly camouflaged!

Not necessarily.
They are quite subtle in their camouflage as they tend to look like many Highway Maintenance vehicles with all those chevrons and that.
As a driver I will register a parked vehicle, whether it is a going to affect me directly or not. I have yet to hit one so I'm comfortable with my observational skills. But I am not going to waste time trying to differentiate between a maintenance vehicle or a secret plod revenue generator, just whether I think it's parked or about to pull out.
That's always a threat as they park in the most ridiculous (dangerous) places too, so probably add to the dangers of the road. 🙄

But I am not going to waste time trying to differentiate between a maintenance vehicle or a secret plod revenue generator

Me neither. I just stick to the speed limits. Never realised how good of a driver I must be to be able to do this 🙂

I treat everyone else on the road as an incompetent fool who hasn't seen me nor anyone else. And when riding motorbikes also assume they'll run into me just for the hell of it.

So far it's enabled me to survive +35 years of driving cars, riding motorbikes and bikes and walking pretty much unscathed - and that includes tens of thousands of miles at way above the NSL/motorway speed limits and the best part of hundred thousand miles riding big motorbikes (mainly commuting in/around the home counties).

Me neither. I just stick to the speed limits. Never realised how good of a driver I must be to be able to do this

No, you've just got a caravan. 'Nuff said. 😛

deleted

scotroutes - Member

Surely if you get done for speeding by a parked car/van or a camera you HAVE been inattentive? It's not like they're subtly camouflaged!

100% true Scotroutes - or you were going so fast you couldn't slow down in time.

My two speeding tickets this year were on a trunk road that is mainly NSL but I was on a 50 mph section that I missed the signs for - so got done for 60 in a 50 by a fixed camera that I saw but thought I was OK. Inattention. the other one was on a dual carriageway section as I booted it past a line of trucks. didn't see the camera ( mobile) soon enough to slow enough. too much speed and poor observation 87 in a 70

too much speed and poor observation 87 in a 70

Surely that's not inattention? - it's just breaking the NSL.

NOpe - I could and should have seen the camera earlier. Of course the best way not to get speeding tickets is not to speed

But you were doing 87.

I'm an increasely non approved way I tend to make progress but if I get caught I'm the one to blame it's my choice.
Yes I get fed up stuck behind the retard doing 40 in a 60 and I will pass them and speed to do so but when I get a ticket I can't blame the bumbling idiot it's was my choice.

As for limit changes on my regular trips some come down but some have also risen

Retard is not a cool word orangeboy.
Anyways.

NOpe - I could and should have seen the camera earlier. Of course the best way not to get speeding tickets is not to speed

That and scotroutes raises an interesting point. At speed one will focus on different areas of the road.
I earned my 3 points (or driver awareness course) on a dual carriageway, coming over a crest, onto a roundabout (where one is naturally looking to the right) on an industrial estate.
Driving at the prescribed 40mph one would and indeed should have taken in all the sights, including the motorway highway maintenance patrol vehicle parked on the left. But at 47mph, neither man nor beast were in danger, nor children, nor baby robins. An errant puppy might have, though.
These vehicles are clearly placed in areas to make the most money, irrespective of the threat to life.

So far it's six pages of car wombles I'm glad to have ignored 😀

[quote=tjagain ]100% true Scotroutes - or you were going so fast you couldn't slow down in time.

I disagree - maybe nether you nor Colin have seen vans nabbing drivers in the way they were both times I got caught. Certainly on the first one, the reported speed was 85mph which is what I was doing as I came over the brow of the hill, and hit the brakes as soon as the camera van came into sight. Sure I was going too fast, because the limit was 70, but unless you're expecting infinite deceleration then the last part of your comment doesn't really apply. I'm slightly less sure on the second one, but only because I don't know exactly what speed I was doing - and expected it to be faster than on the ticket (it's a 50 limit DC, which used to be a 70 and is still just as safe at that speed on the bit I was on - the only reason I slow down is expectation of cameras).

[b] I'm glad to have ignored[/b]

Err...

😆

[b]Rule 146[/b]
Adapt your driving to the appropriate type and condition of road you are on. In particular

do not treat speed limits as a target. It is often not appropriate or safe to drive at the maximum speed limit

take the road and traffic conditions into account. Be prepared for unexpected or difficult situations, for example, the road being blocked beyond a blind bend.

Or a blind summit perhaps?

If it helps clarify things at all, the van was parked up way beyond my stopping distance, even at 85. You do appreciate that it's possible for things to come into sight over the brow of a hill (or around a corner) even if you're religiously obeying that rule?

Or a blind summit perhaps?

Blind?
Blind would hint at not being able to stop within the distance that one could see. Unless a GT 40 suddenly appeared, that was unlikely as I had followed, and could see all vehicles for the previous half mile of the dual carriageway in said industrial estate. 😉

Adapt your driving to the appropriate type and condition of road you are on. In particular

So, 3am on a deserted motorway the Highway code says that one can drive at a speed which is appropriate to the type and conditions. This could, in fact, be higher than the prescribed 70mph then. Happy days.
The down side is that we all have to crawl around hairpin bends at no more thabn 5mph, which scotroute does, of course. 😛

sbob - A tiny fraction of the ones that have a serious outcome (KSIs).

What fraction? 4% (which I would call a significant rather than a tiny fraction) of them are directly caused by speed, it seems unlikely that speed doesn't exacerbate a measurable further number - so tell us what that is.

I thought my point was clear...

No what you did was quote half a statistic to suit your argument. 4% of KSI accidents are caused by speed as the primary factor. What %age of KSI accidents would have had a less serious impact if the speeds involved were lower? What %age of vehicles involved in KSI accidents were speeding immediately before the accident? I cant accept that the latter is insignificant as my observations suggest that a significant proportion of drivers are speeding a significant proportion of the time. Intuition tells us higher speeds are more likely to result in KSI. I'd love to see valid evidence that shows KSI are not both more likely at higher speed and that KSIs were not more likely when a driver exceeds the limit even if speed itself was not the primary causitive factor. Your point was clear, it was just unsubstantiated, counter intuitive and probably intended to support a hypothesis you would prefer to be the case.

The problem is roads are public infrastructure not private playgrounds for the speedy boys.

Car drivers have driven almost all other users off the road.

The reason so many people are reluctant to cycle, the reason so many parents shuttle their children to nearby schools instead of them walking, is because of the fear of meeting one of those superbly skilled entitled drivers who doesn't need to observe speed limits.

That quiet country winding road you're hooting along at night may just have a pedestrian or cyclist round the corner, so you should drive accordingly. Pedestrians and cyclists have as much right to the road as drivers, and there's no footpath, so where else would one be?

Speed is good fun, but so is shooting. Speeding in public places is as unacceptable as target shooting down a crowded mall. You don't mean to hit anyone, but it can and does happen.

The punishments are a joke.

Some cops just don't care and just want less paperwork.

A while ago, a woman knocked a guy off his moped outside my house. She turned straight across him. The moped guy had his leg ripped through to the bone just above the ankle which, I'm guessing, he did as he bounced off the crash barrier.

The traffic cop breathalised both parties then just left it at that. The accident was blatantly the woman's fault, this guy was lying in an ambulance on gas and air with his ankle ripped apart and the cop said it wasn't bad enough to be prosecuted for due care and attention.

In my book, not seeing another road user is not paying attention.

tjagain - Member

the other one was on a dual carriageway section as I booted it past a line of trucks. didn't see the camera ( mobile) soon enough to slow enough. too much speed and poor observation 87 in a 70

So doing 87mph past a line of traffic doing what 56mph? On a dual carriageway. Seriously bad driving IMO. I don't do 87 on the outside lane of the motorway.

Was this a restricted road like the Edinburgh bypass that bans slow traffic or could there have been a cyclist or a tractor round the next corner?

That quiet country winding road you're hooting along at night may just have a pedestrian or cyclist round the corner, so you should drive accordingly.

Completely agree, that's what I've been saying all along. That country lane is almost certainly NSL - a 60mph speed limit. Safe to drive at 60 when you don't know what's round the next bend? I don't think so.

In my book, not seeing another road user is not paying attention.

Yup.

It's always deeply depressing to read how little regard drivers, who are allegedly "cyclists" on this forum really care about the safety of vulnerable road users. I've experienced such rage, such carelessness, such danger on rural roads and urban streets from motorists.

So when I hear forumites flopping their willies out and saying what awesome drivers they are that they can just ignore the law as they see fit, I just hear a bunch of ****ers.

You motorist dickheads, you are the reason so few cycle in this country. You are the reason children aren't safe to walk or ride to school. You are the reason my old housemate walks with a permanent limp at the age of 26 because she got mown down on the pavement by a motorist who thought he had a massive willy too.

These vehicles are clearly placed in areas to make the most money, irrespective of the threat to life.

No, they are trying to get the point across that there are speed limits and you have to stick to them. I can't imagine the kind of attitude that blames law enforcement for enforcing the law, rather than taking a look at your own behaviour.

You don't have a moral or legal right to speed. End of story.

molgrips - Member

However I have avoided many many accidents because my speed was conservative and I was able to slow down in time.

But that's driving to the conditions, which everyone is in favour of. The difference is that the people who like driving fast think that all drivers are sensible and responsible enough to make a good choice on their own.

I've no idea where on earth they get that idea from tbh. It's almost as if they are scrabbling around for justification for their own desires...

For what it's worth, I like driving fast. But I don't do it.

I see you are continuing your usual position of refusing to accept that drivers can make safe judgements whilst simultaneously professing that you can make safe judgements. 🙂

Have you ever considered that there are some people who might think that [i]you[/i]drive too fast? 💡

I see you are continuing your usual position of refusing to accept that drivers can make safe judgements

Flipping eck.

Of course I accept that drivers CAN make safe judgements. If I didn't, I would not go on the roads at all.

However I don't accept that ALL drivers make safe judgements.

If those of you who think that the limits are too low want to do something, I'd suggest you go on strike. Refuse to drive. Simply send your licence back to here

DVLA
Swansea
SA99 1BU

with a strongly worded letter saying you refuse to drive until the speed limits are increased. When they are inundated with post and the roads are empty I'm sure they'll get the idea.

If those of you who think that the limits are too low want to do something, I'd suggest you go on strike. Refuse to drive. Simply send your licence back to here

😆

If those of you who think that the limits are too low want to do something, I'd suggest you go on strike. Refuse to drive. Simply send your licence back to here

DVLA
Swansea
SA99 1BU

with a strongly worded letter saying you refuse to drive until the speed limits are increased. When they are inundated with post and the roads are empty I'm sure they'll get the idea.

Chapeau!

molgrips - Member

Do you think that's a deliberate decision?

It's not. The reason is that speed is easy to measure, but attentiveness is not.

If a driver propels his or her car into a stationary object that is directly in front of them, I'd wager that an indication of some level of inattentiveness had occurred. 💡

We can't prosecute people for simply not paying attention - thats impossible.

What absolute trot.
Of course we can, there is even a specific offence for it: driving without due care and attention.

When accidents are caused, then they go to court, and they go through a completely different process with different results.

My word you are on a roll.
The only difference is fixed penalty notices aren't routinely offered when accidents are caused. If we did offer FPNs then the process would be exactly the same; accept FPN or go to court.

It is NOT a conscious decision to prioritise speed over paying attention. That's absurd.

What did they do, throw all the ideas for policing the roads into a hat and pick one out?
Maybe the policy decisions came to them in a dream?

You're on a way express train to Turbobelmtown, and the guards are on strike so you can't get off.

You, and others, are simply pissing and moaning because you are impatient and want to drive faster.

I gave up driving. I do not drive.

It is absolutely 100% definitively safer to go slower, because there is less energy involved. It's also more pleasant for everyone else on the road, and uses up fewer natural resources and generates less pollution. This is irrefutable.

It's also irrefutable that you are more dangerous, less pleasant and more polluting than [b]someone who doesn't drive[/b].

So we strike a balance, and attempt to enforce consistent behaviour.

More trot.
We allow a ridiculously varied assortment of users on our roads, with different rules for all of them.
Consistent behaviour is only of use if you can always rely on it. If you can't always rely on it then it is dangerous to try.

Your main argument seems to be that either the police care more about speed than whether or not you are paying attention

How the police feel is irrelevant, the fact is speed is enforced and DWDCA routinely isn't.

or that by having speed limits it somehow encourages people not to pay attention

It removes a thought process which makes a lot of people less safe.
The IAM, and other advanced driving systems are designed to make you think about your driving, which makes you safer.
Note that the IAM do not condone speeding.

Edukator - Reformed Troll

Every one involving a pedestrian or cyclist.

You've misread what I was pointing out.

poly - Member

What fraction? 4% (which I would call a significant rather than a tiny fraction) of them are directly caused by speed, it seems unlikely that speed doesn't exacerbate a measurable further number - so tell us what that is.

100%
No two stationary vehicles have ever collided together.

What % of KSI accidents would have had a less serious impact if the speeds involved were lower?

100%; see above.

What % of vehicles involved in KSI accidents were speeding immediately before the accident?

Don't know off the top of my head, but then that wasn't what was being discussed.

Your point was clear, it was just unsubstantiated, counter intuitive and probably intended to support a hypothesis you would prefer to be the case.

My point was and is clear.
I think we should spend more of our efforts prosecuting people that cause accidents rather than those that haven't.
I think that it is better to address the more prolific causes of problems than the more minor.

I think you've waded in and probably misunderstood my view point.

It's not like they're subtly camouflaged!

Tell that to the drivers nabbed by a camera hidden in a horsebox, Wales I think.
Not that I was one of them, I've always had a clean licence and intend to keep it that way. 🙂

I think you've waded in and probably misunderstood my view point.

Are you new here? (-:

[quote=sbob ]I think we should spend more of our efforts prosecuting people that cause accidents rather than those that haven't

No - what we should address is behaviour which causes accidents, not simply target those who've been unlucky. Otherwise we still have the situation that people think they won't ever cause an accident through their bad driving, so no matter how hard you come down on those who drive exactly the same but are unlucky that makes no difference to them.

(I'm not necessarily suggesting speeding is one of those things - in fact I'd suggest there are other aspects of driving behaviour which are more important to clamp down on).

So what is sbob's point exactly? Other than that I'm an idiot?