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

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.

You're probably right aracer - the "Govt propaganda" bs is going right over my head. But then so do all the other govt propaganda conspiracy theories about climate change, MMR/Flu vaccines, etc, etc,

Or, try to address the reasons people hate them. Everyone knows at least one road where the speed limit is set wrongly, I reckon.... obey out of respect not out of compulsion.

Yeah that does sound good.

But it would be a LOT more expensive to implement and honestly, could you name a realistic speed limit they could set that people wouldn't be tempted to breach "on a clear night on an empty motorway"? 150mph? 200?

Nope, but you could accomodate better for most conditions, which is all a single set limit can ever really do.

I used to reckon that one good idea would be to waive all speed limits on all motorways between 1am and 2am daily. Let people get their speed fix in, in a reasonably controlled manner, and let anyone who wants to avoid it, avoid it. But that sounds a bit clarksony.

You're probably right aracer - the "Govt propaganda" bs is going right over my head.

Well no speeding today. Did half the A90 in first gear 🙂

(the whole thing was one big queue thanks to an accident half way down)

What does the Govt gain from this "speeding propaganda" then?

MrSalmon - Member
What does the Govt gain from this "speeding propaganda" then?

Revenue and easy metrics based policing to show the public how tuff they are on miscreants.