[Closed] I only speed when it's safe...

Wrapped in a big box of steel they are relatively safe. Pity the poor ****er they hit.

Wrapped in a big box of steel they are relatively safe. Pity the poor ****er they hit.

I dunno, might not want to hit one of these:

[img] [/img]

That's the line I use to justify my speeding.

Obviously, I wouldn't be speeding in the circumstances that you have described. I'm hypocritical, but not a complete moron.

Hence my car has stayed on the drive and will remain there tomorrow as well.

What do you expect people to say "I only speed when it's unsafe"?

People drive to their abilities (or atleast their understanding of their abilities) - hence Hora leaving his car on the drive.

Remember this site is provided by a man whose first article was about being banned for speeding, and then being banned again for driving whilst banned.......

Speeding is NOT a crime. Driving stupidly is.

There is a difference.

Speeding is NOT a crime. Driving stupidly is.

I think you'll find that speeding IS a crime and I have yet to hear of anyone being charged with stupidity, no matter how much they deserved it...

Adultery is not a crime
Bigamy is a crime

Go figure....

Okay i pity the poor ****er they hit who isn't in a bigger box of steel

They may 'only speed when its safe'

But when they try to slow down that's when they suddenly find out its [b]unsafe[/b].

FFS

Speeding in itself has no victim.

Having an accident becuase you're driving too fast, too stupidly, too drunkly does.

If I am going 37 in a 30 limit and I hit no-one, then no crime has been committed in reality.

I drive very carefully, and I really do slow down in sh!t conditions like today. But I'm also happy that I pay enough attention to drive fast WHEN the conditions allow.

What ****s me off is the nanny state ponces on this site harping on about how Jesus will have them licking his left one when they die just becuase they piously stuck to 70 (and annoyed me no doubt, by clogging up a perfectly usable outside lane).

People that hate speeding are usually just sh!t drivers.

Nobody was ever hurt because they were going too fast, it's being in the wrong place that does the damage.

I dunno, might not want to hit one of these

Yep, a mate from uni did that many years ago. Lost it on the A90 Aberdeen road and went headlong into a snow plough. Didn't survive. 🙁

Speeding in snow: not good!

Speed doesn't kill, bad driving does.

just poured myself a glass of ale. Should be fun.

just poured myself a glass of ale

LOL - Drink driving is ridiculous. Even [b][u]I[/b][/u] could agree with that......

deadlydarcy - finish your ale and see if you can beat the speed limit in the snow. You can always drive better after a few beers, helps you relax into it mnore.

deadlydarcy - Member
just poured myself a glass of ale. Should be fun.

I do hope you are using your other hand to text that message to STW while driving with your knees.

Nobody else gets that kind of grief when they say "I've put the kettle on...etc". Just thought it was too late for tea/coffee 😳

Now I'm a drink driver too 👿

If I am going 37 in a 30 limit and I hit no-one, then no crime has been committed in reality.

By that logic, if I fire a gun randomly in a street but I don't hit anyone then no crime has been committed?

Or if I enter your house, have a look around and leave without taking or damaging anything, then no crime has been committed?

Of course speeding is a crime! It has varying degrees of seriousness certainly: 80 on the motorway on a clear day is [u]a lot[/u] less serious than 50 in the 20 zone by the school, or 70 in a 50 when it's dark, snowing and icy.

But they are all still crimes!

Apparently some people speed in bad conditions just to keep up with other cars even though they know it is an unsafe speed!

If it were completely safe and didn't infringe on civil liberties or privacy, every car to be fitted with GPS, every road to have variable speed limits depending on conditions, light, weather, traffic volume etc. Infringers to be issued with penalties for breaking the limit. Sometimes, the limit will be high, sometimes it'll be low.

Where is god's gift to driving anyway?

deadlydarcy:

Where is god's gift to driving anyway?

Hanging from the eaves sleeping?

Well said grahamS, if the police stop you doing 37 in a 30 you,ll find out it is a crime. Away and read your dail mail Rs****(er)

More likely snoozing under his bridge El Chup

M_F in scratched record shocker.

Also, i don't believe in god...

Jesus! Its like saying candyman in the mirror 5 times 😉

I only speed when it's safe. What annoys me more is people who think that the speed limit's a target, and drive/ride at it regardless of conditions. Who's more dangerous, me doing 90mph on a motorway on the bike or the huge number of people doing exactly 30mph in built up areas while it's cold and wet, or snowing, or foggy? The speed limit has no bearing whatsoever on whether you're driving safely, either way.

well who really give a f

i travel at speeds appropriate to the conditions, if the road is empty dry and I can see a long way in front and behind I will go faster, however I would not consider doing the speed limit round borrowdale as this would be unsafe.

Speed limits are arbitry numbers assigned to help the police make money

retireing with glass of single malt to watch 😈

and I know I have made spelling mistakes

Joe Bloggs drives at 71 mph on an empty motorway on a clear, dry day.

John Smith travels at 29 mph (in a 30 zone) on a wet, miserable, dark afternoon on a crowded street with lots of shoppers about.

Which one is the dangerous driver? And which one is breaking the law?

Speeding is good.

Get over it.

People crash for other reasons. Crap drivers, drunks, whatever. As I said, I do take extra care in the snow, and rain, and anything I consider a risk.

But the STW concensus that anything over 70 on a motorway is akin to child molesting is ridiculous. I have a nice car, very capable of high speeds, that is dealer serviced and driven by someone sensible (i.e. me).

Would you rather meet some ****wit in a stolen Nova with no insurance driven 28 in a 30 limit?

It's arse. Speeding makes accidents worse. Speeding does not make accidents more likely.

XXX

which one is breaking the law?

Neither? 71 in a 70 is not speeding. There is an allowable margin for exactly this reason.
No speed camera would fire at that speed, no traffic cop would pull you, no prosecution would stand.

i travel at speeds appropriate to the conditions,

The point of my original post is that [i]everyone[/I] always says that - but my experience would suggest that actually some folk just think they are infallible and speed regardless.

Neither? 71 in a 70 is not speeding. There is an allowable margin for exactly this reason.
No speed camera would fire at that speed, no traffic cop would pull you, no prosecution would stand.

So just because they can't reliably catch you it's not a crime then?

Fuzzy logic for pious thinkers there...

So just because they can't reliably catch you it's not a crime then?

No, it's not a crime because a genuine absolute limit of 70 would mean folk would have to drive at 65 to avoid accidentally slipping over it. The best driver in the world couldn't hold a car at 70 on a varying road without straying into 70.000001 mph.

GrahamS - Member

which one is breaking the law?

Neither? 71 in a 70 is not speeding. There is an allowable margin for exactly this reason.
No speed camera would fire at that speed, no traffic cop would pull you, no prosecution would stand.

Have you been to North Wales recently?

statistically speaking it would be safer to do away with all speed limits - then no one would die from speeding

DrRS**** - Member

People that hate speeding are usually just sh!t drivers.

No they are just obeying the law, driving safely and probably trying to keep their licence and don't want to kill other road users.

I regard myself a pretty good driver and I love driving fast but I'd rather do it on a race track (which I have)than kill someone on the public road or lose my job.

Carry Dr idiot, should you kill someone you'll have their family on your door gunning for you.

You're a Fred troll yes?

Errm, the limit is the limit it's just not enforced. This is usually because speedos are not calibrated and people are given a margin for their error.

If the Police really wanted to do you at 70.00001 mph, they could as you'd be breaking the speed limit and therefore the law.

FWIW, I think the whole speeding bedevillment/arbitrary/lazy enforcement is a simple means of easily villifying large sections of the polulation, raising revenue and being seen to be 'proactive'.

It must be time for someone to trot out some of the Govt propaganda about how speed kills and how 'Safety' (ha ha) cameras have reduced acidents and deaths. Yeah, bloody right.

It must be time for someone to trot out some of the Govt propaganda about how speed kills.....

So if a skip lorry pulls out in front of you when you're doing 80mph, you are no more likely to die than if you were doing 8mph ?

Cool..........I'll remember that 8)

If you were doing 8 mph on the m/way, you'd probably have a skip lorry plough straight into the back of you

If you were doing 8 mph on the m/way

Motorways ? You never mentioned motorways.

So what are you saying.........that inappropriate speed can kill ? Wrong speed in the wrong place ?

In other words........"speed can kill" ?

"speed can kill" ?

Nope, it's the sudden de / acceleration that does that...

Travelling at 80 mph never killed anyone per se 😉

ernie_lynch - Member

It must be time for someone to trot out some of the Govt propaganda about how speed kills.....

So if a skip lorry pulls out in front of you when you're doing 80mph, you are no more likely to die than if you were doing 8mph ?

Cool..........I'll remember that

Yawn.... or time for puerile silly examples.... By this, I take it you either don't drive (to mitigate the isk completely i.e. zero speed) or drive everywhere at your very safe and appropriate 8mph?

If I were you, I'd wrap my head in tinfoil tonight to avoid any more brainwashing 🙂

It's just easier to catch & do people for speeding than it is to catch & do them for "driving like a tw*t" for instance. There are roads round here that you'd have to be absolutely insane to be doing 60mph on them in even perfect condtions & there are also roads that limited to much lower speeds which don't make any sense at all - to do people for speeding in those circumstances is just easy pickings.

So just out of interest, what would you be driving at 8mph when a skip lorry pulls out in front of you?

You must be the pissed up knob driving a mobility scooter home from the pub

it's the sudden de / acceleration that does that..

So this sudden "de-acceleration" isn't in anyway effected by what speed you happen to be doing then ?

So let's try another example. If I'm cruising along at 70mph, and a lorry pulls out in front of me into my lane, I stand as much chance of dying as if I was doing 140mph ?

Because I would be able to stop just as quick at 140mph ?

You must be the pissed up knob driving a mobility scooter home from the pub

No I don't drink and drive. Driving back from the shops - the mobility scooter helps me with my heavy shopping.

So let's try another example. If I'm cruising along at 70mph, and a lorry pulls out in front of me into my lane, I stand as much chance of dying as if I was doing 140mph ?

Yes. In an unavoidable collision at 70mph, there's not going to be much left. at 140mph, the bits left will be a lot smaller.

140mph is taking the piss. No one is arguing the case for this. People are aggreived at being done for example, at 80mph in clear motorway conditions when potentially 'driving like a ****' is more serious though not as easily enforced.

Silly examples can be dragged out by both pro and anti speeders. Something worth bearing in mind about speed is that in an urban area the 30 and 20 mph limits are there for very good reasons.

If you hit a pedestrian at 30 mph they have a 90% chance of surviving, if the speed is 40 mph they have a 10% chance of surviving.

ernie - appropriate speed for the conditions is the issue, greater speed deceleration is almost always going to have a bad result, if you are doing 140mph past lorries at 70mph then I would suggest that the appropriate speed has been exceeded - but the question is would I be the demon of all time if I were to be doing that sort of speed on an empty straight dual carriageway at say 2am with no other vehicles in sight?

EdwardH - Member
Silly examples can be dragged out by both pro and anti speeders. Something worth bearing in mind about speed is that in an urban area the 30 and 20 mph limits are there for very good reasons.

If you hit a pedestrian at 30 mph they have a 90% chance of surviving, if the speed is 40 mph they have a 10% chance of surviving.

I totally agree here, though question the source of your data. Possibly Govt anti speed adverts on the TV unless you've done your won independant research?

The margin for erro is much smaller in 20/30/40 etc and it would be pretty anti social to bomb around at 35 in a 20 when school is emptying woudln't it. Only a moron would do that....

However, 35 in a 20 at 2am when all the kiddies are in bed? Is that equally as serious?

[i]I dunno, might not want to hit one of these:[/i]

An imaginary gritter? It won't hurt a bit.

Yes. In an unaoidable collision at 70mph

Why would it necessarily be "an unavoidable collision" at 70mph ? You could maybe apply the brakes and stop.

It might be "an unavoidable collision" at 100mph though.

Or should I maybe say, "an avoidable collision" ?

And yes I often/nearly always, exceed the max speed limit on motorways.

But I don't come out with some Clarkson bollox about "speed never kills".

So this sudden "de-acceleration" isn't in anyway effected by what speed you happen to be doing then ?

So let's try another example. If I'm cruising along at 70mph, and a lorry pulls out in front of me into my lane, I stand as much chance of dying as if I was doing 140mph ?

Because I would be able to stop just as quick at 140mph ?

You, somewhat unsurprisingly, were the one being the facetious pleb, so don't complain when you get a stupid answer to a stupid question.

Of course it's affected by the speed. However, it isn't the speed that is killing you, it's the sudden lack of it when you hit something. So my point still stands - speed doesn't kill.

Otherwise explain how 80 is an unsafe speed, when fighter pilots happily survive at Mach 2.

As I said on the D&D thread, i'd rather have someone doing 90 in a 70, or having had 2 pints on the road and be paying attention, than have a tawt cut up the lorry I happen to be next to in the snow, whilst doing probably about 40.

Speed is irrelevant, poor driving is the problem. Speed is easy to catch, poor driving isn't. Speed does not necessarily equate to poor driving, otherwise we'll have to assume that Jensen Button is worse than the majority of drivers in the country...

ernie_lynch - Member

Yes. In an unaoidable collision at 70mph

Why would it necessarily be "an unavoidable collision" at 70mph ? You could maybe apply the brakes and stop.

It might be "an unavoidable collision" at 100mph though.

Or should I maybe say, "an avoidable collision" ?

And yes I often/nearly always, exceed the max speed limit on motorways.

But I don't come out with some Clarkson bollox about "speed never kills".

Yep, lots of speculation on hypothetical situations. That's probably the main point, lot's of variables but Govt mantra is always 'speed kills'. Bit too simplistic and as I said earlier, lazy Policing.

As for your last sentence, not something I said as 'never' is clealry crackers using your 140mph example. Try driving at that speed into a concrete bridge abutment and you'd soon find out what speed (or rather rapid deceleration) can do... As for Clarkson, I wouldn't wish to defend him but I can't imagine he'd come out with that cobblers either.

BTW, I very rarely speed having learnt my lesson your Worship, I just object to the nonsense that is constantly peddled on the subject.

Zokes - well said - if there an applaud button here somewhere I'd like to press it

Speed does not necessarily equate to poor driving

And where did I say that it did ?

I might be doing a ton on an empty motorway, but if I see some vehicles ahead I will slow down to 70/80mph to pass them. Not necessarily because I believe that I have poor driving skills, but because I am unsure of the driving skills of other, maybe slower, drivers. Plus of course there is the possibility of mechanical failure.

The slower speed will allow me to slow down or stop quicker, than if I was going faster. Your ability to stop/steer, is dependant on your speed. So speed can be the determining factor if you die.

so don't complain when you get a stupid answer....

Me complaining ? 😕

I love "stupid answers" 8)

Presumably by speeding we mean exceeding the posted limit for the road, that which you will get done for if a camera nabs you? I'm still waiting to find out what they're going to do with me having rejected a speed awareness course (they don't tell you when they give you the option of that or the 3 points that the only 2 dates on offer will be stupid ones you can't make, one because of a work deadline, the other in the period between Xmas and NY when everybody including me is off visiting rellies). That's having been done for 58 in a 50 (only 1mph over the trigger speed) on a bit of road which hasn't changed at all since it was a 70 limit, and is still perfectly safe at 70 - the only obvious reason for the change being that it was a stretch between two 50 limits and they decided to get rid of the limit changes. Hands up to the administrative law breaking, but I'd challenge anybody to explain to me why my speed was any more unsafe than doing 58 in a 70 limit (SAC would have been an exercise in sitting on my hands and keeping my mouth shut).

Jolly good 🙂

Right, off to bed. Just to make Ernie feel good, I can guarantee I won't be speeding, or drinking and driving, or driving at all for that matter tomorrow. I may quicken my pace to a speed of 4.5 mph though if it starts getting dark and I'm some way from home. I assume that's not excessive or unreasonable speed, or that 4.5 mph is lethal in its own right. I guess it may be risky to find out though...

If I am going 37 in a 30 limit and I hit no-one, then no crime has been committed in reality.

So if I drink half a bottle of vodka and go out for a drive, no crime has been committed as long as I don't hit anyone?

Question: honestly, would any of the STW Pro-Speeding Lobby confess that they have been speeding in the current wintery conditions?

Because that is what this thread [I]was[/I] about. Even the pro-speeders claim that they don't speed in inappropriate conditions, so just who are the people that I see speeding in snow?

ernie_lynch - Member

Speed does not necessarily equate to poor driving

And where did I say that it did ?

That is the core of the ‘speed kills’ fallacy... speed = poor driving and is the devils own work. You can't have missed that surely?

so who are the people that I see speeding in snow?

Idiots

That is the core of the ‘speed kills’ fallacy

Rubbish. You can be the most skilful driver in the world, but if a child dashes out in front of you, whether that child is killed or not, can be directly related to your speed.

'Skill' need not come into at all.

GrahamS - Member
Question: honestly, would any of the STW Pro-Speeding Lobby confess that they have been speeding in the current wintery conditions?

For the record, I'm not 'pro speeding' I'm anti Govt bull$hit. It's a different matter entirely.

As for speeding in these conditions, I can't even reach 30mph where I live at the moment without bumping into the scenary so there's not much chance of that...

Bacofoil hat for Mr Lynch 🙂

I thought we'd dealt with the 20/30/40 zones? Yes you'd be an anti social berk to speed when there are pedestrians/cyclists/other road users around in these zones. I did ask, would the implications be the same if you did say 35 in a 20 at 2am?

But a child, on a clear motorway at 2am when someone is trundling along at 80mph? Is this a likely scenario?

<sigh> I'm off to bed, very slowly tho... 🙂

Even the pro-speeders claim that they don't speed in inappropriate conditions, so just who are the people that I see speeding in snow?

You can be the most skilful driver in the world, but if a child dashes out in front of you, whether that child is killed or not, can be directly related to your speed.

But a child, on a clear motorway at 2am ....

Eh ? What you talking about ?

I thought we'd dealt with the 20/30/40 zones?

Not me mate. Must've been another person/thread.

...tend to stick to the speed limit or drive at less than it when there is the likelihood of children being about

Is that because speed can kill ?

Surely you are just trolling though, GG?

Yeah, that must be it.

Is that because speed can kill ?

...though it's still not strictly the speed which kills, but in the sense you're using, then excessive speed can result in a death which might not have occurred with lower speed, and I'm sure nobody is disputing that.

Not really sure why I'm feeding the troll though.

road safety by numbers is a contributor, given it encourages people not to engage brains when they step into a car.

yeah, I can see that. Certainly the bad thing about speed limits is that some people seem to feel robbed and aggrieved if they are not achieving them, regardless of the road or prevailing conditions.

But I really can't imagine a better way of realistically keeping the road speeds reasonable.

Does anyone honestly think we'd be better off with no speed limits at all?

I did ask, would the implications be the same if you did say 35 in a 20 at 2am?

no, and the magistrate sentencing guidelines allow for that. There is a base level fine, then a consideration of other factors, including "Factors Indicating Greater Degree of Harm", such as location and presence of pedestrians.

(page 131)

Does anyone honestly think we'd be better off with no speed limits at all?

Who exactly do you think suggested otherwise?

The person who said "It must be time for someone to trot out some of the Govt propaganda about how speed kills...."

Speed can very clearly kill. Which in large part, is the reason why we have speed limits. I don't buy into the 'federal government conspiracy' bs.

The point is going so far over your head, GG, that I doubt you can even hear the "whoosh".

No, but that isn't the point

Well it is though.

If people hate speed limits so much then only alternative action is to get rid of them completely (or at least not enforce them).

If you simply increase them, or make them variable, then they would still have to be set based on some concept of an average driver/car, so you'd still get the same people deciding that they were excellent drivers in great cars who could ignore the limits.

like so many of the STW "Middle-age road rage" troll fests this thread is thrilling...
[img] [/img]
No Really...

like so many of the STW "Middle-age road rage" troll fests this thread is thrilling...

Go away son, the grown ups are talking.

GrahamS wrote,

"If people hate speed limits so much then only alternative action is to get rid of them completely (or at least not enforce them)."

Or, try to address the reasons people hate them. Everyone knows at least one road where the speed limit is set wrongly, I reckon. I can think of 2 within about a mile of my house, one too low, one too high. And as soon as you start thinking "This speed limit's wrong" you're more likely to ignore it, and as soon as you ignore one, you're more likely to ignore the rest.

So. Constant review. Less arbitrary conditions. Speed limits that are realistic and reasonable for the roads. Or to put it another way, laws that people believe in, and obey out of respect not out of compulsion.