[Closed] pitch forks at the ready not clarkson this time.

And 180mph on any sort of public road is idiotic.

True. But on the de-restricted sections of roads on the Isle of Man, is perfectly legal.

So do we all agree he was stupid allegedly driving at 180mph in the location shown in this thread where he should be doing 40 mph?

And if proven to be true should he have a life ban?

iolo - If it was Katie Hopkins driving at that speed I'm sure the response would be slightly different but as it's "We love him and would gladly let him sleep with the wife, hell with me too"

Legal or highly illegal, at least Guy Martin has experience of traveling at those speeds on those roads. Katie Hopkins only has experience of of being a ****.

durhambiker - Member

And 180mph on any sort of public road is idiotic.

Rah, a speed thread, we've not had one of these for at least a week. Can we just assume that for everyone who posts, everyone who drives slower than them is a dawdler and anyone faster a reckless lunatic, and skip ahead to page 23?

Anyway.

I used to work in traffic managementroad safety for a local authority. I've seen a 60 dropped to a 40 for no other reason than some locals thought people were speeding.

How is that supposed to work, exactly? The people who ignore speed limits because they, presumably, believe they're too low, are they suddenly going to fall in line when the limits are even lower?

Doing 180mph in a 40 should probably be jail. Saying you did 180mph in a 40 isn't an offence at all, as far as I know. He's always had a bit of a complicated relationship with the truth.

In the interests of scientific and legal fact finding, "I once did 300mph through a school.", let's see what happens.

OF course, we appreciate that going slightly over the limit in a clear safe spot isn't going to kill anyone. We get that, you don't need to point it out.

Seems to have been a worthwhile thing to point out, I think that's the first time I've seen you admit that. (-:

It's clear we need far better training. But we still need limits, if only to encourage consistency.

We need [i]appropriate[/i] limits, to encourage consistency and also reduce driver frustration. Not arbitrary numbers someone's made up on the run-up to a local election.

Was the school empty ?

In the interests of scientific and legal fact finding, "I once did 300mph through a school.", let's see what happens.

Then you either sneezed or did something you still need arresting for.

molgrips

So you're advocating removing speed limits altogether?

Absolutely NOT!

I am advocating setting speed limits to appropriate values to suit modern driving conditions

I am advocating replacing our reliance on "machine justice" (ie speed cameras) with real police officers, who can use their judgement in individual cases, and who can give more than just a fine and some points (which lets face it, cause only resentment and little or no learning when issues by faceless arbitrary machines that only care a absolute speed and no other factor

I am advocating making the penalties for accidents caused by inappropriate speed ( and careless driving / inattention) much much more onerous, so that drivers understand their responsibilities.

I am advocating making driving a "privileged" and not a "right". if you're so bad at driving it takes you more than 3 attempts to pass our, frankly ridiculously easy current test, you aren't a driver and never should be.

I am advocating having both at least 10 year mandatory retests and possibly even different "Tiers" of driving licenses

Unfortunately, none of those^^ things will happen. All of them are "difficult" politically and socially, potentially costly, and in today's "PC WORLD" where we seem to have to be completely non-discriminatory, and allow everyone to drive,no matter how poor they are at doing so.

So you're advocating removing speed limits altogether?

Read it again. Tell me where he said that.

I'll save you the bother, he didn't.

in today's "PC WORLD" we seem to have to be completely non-discriminatory, and allow everyone to drive,no matter how poor they are at doing so.

Sometimes we ban people for speeding.

<edit- can't think of any way to edit that joke to make it not horrible>

I once did 300mph through PC World...

Really good points well made by some users here.

However, @molgrips what about smoky bacon crisps?

I agree, but there is another factor that a lot of studies have showed is very important when assessing real risk and the influence on our choice of speed.

It's called "progression to normality" and is a classic bit of human behavior.

In an ideal world, each and every driver would be skillful and trained enough to be able to choose a suitable speed at all moments they are driving, and hence avoid any accident that might occur.

However 2 critical factors play a major part:

1) most people are "average" drivers not expert ones.
2) Accidents are actually very rare, on a time or miles per crash basis.

The road isn't a track, deer, kids, other morons pull out in front of you - basically you are more at risk from an act of god on the road. Being a great driver or an average driver isn't going to help much if your car is travelling to fast for your brain to be able to physically react in time. That's why speed is dangerous, no one is good enough to avoid all accidents that might occur.

I am advocating replacing our reliance on "machine justice" (ie speed cameras) with real police officers, who can use their judgement in individual cases, and who can give more than just a fine and some points (which lets face it, cause only resentment and little or no learning when issues by faceless arbitrary machines that only care a absolute speed and no other factor

Nahhh, we need more automation and less humans in charge of 2-3000lb vehicles. Bring on driverless cars.

the more we treat everyone like idiots

That's because people are idiots, remember how truly idiotic most average people are...you know....your standard Sun/Daily Mail reader....well 10 percent of the population are even worse having an IQ below 85. Let's not even mention the high IQ types who are either lacking common sense or fine motor skills - 90 percent of drivers are not fit to drive and their accident rates will dwarf those of computer driven cars in 20 years.

Cougar, that was part of my point. I'm not suggesting we can trust people. My comments were in response to someone who mentioned things that influence speed limits. The truth is, the system we have is flawed, however no one is proposing a viable alternative.

Silly stuff like in my example actually harms the validity of speed limits. If they don't make sense, people lose trust in the system, not just at that specific location but in general.

Given the mileage I now do in a year and how critical it is for my job, I don't risk the wrath of the cameras, despite the fact that our site response times are measured to the nearest minute!

Jimjam he races on closed circuits where riders/spectators know the risks and marshals are about to warn of hazzards.

Just thought I'd point that out.

Theres a dual carriageway near me- armco in the centre and its a 40 limit.

The max that Ive seen down there is 70ish.

hora - Member

Jimjam he races on closed circuits where riders/spectators know the risks and marshals are about to warn of hazzards.

Just thought I'd point that out.

Yes, and if he's actually done 180mph in a 40 zone he should lose his licence and probably be banned for life. To a person who's used to doing 160+ on a crotch rocket 180 in an Aston is probably pretty wee buns though.

me where he said that.

I'll save you the bother, he didn't

I know, that's why I asked for clarification since it seemed to be the logical conclusion of his argument. If he is arguing for different speed limits, then that won't change the situation he describes.

Trying to have a proper discussion here not a rhetorical bitch-fest.

Hes NOT been caught.

So no ban.

However hes sped on a public road and admitted as much. I wonder if the stw fanboiz will now disown him?

HOWEVER the beeb again reporting. Flat out? Does that really mean 180 in a car round there? Hes good on a bike but in a car. I imagine flat out was a tongue in cheek description.

Well according to him he was doing 180mph.

The 33-year-old wrote in the Sunday Times Driving section: ‘I saw 180mph down Sulby Straight, one of the fastest sections on the TT course, and the car wasn’t even in top gear.’

Read more: http://www.visordown.com/motorcycle-news--general-news/guy-martin-in-police-probe-after-admitting-to-180mph-speeds-on-public-roads/26568.html#ixzz3XvQLxpr0

What if....he wasn't telling the truth. It's certainly what I'd be telling the Inspector of IOM when he comes enquiring. Maybe it's a garnished tale, you know the kind of tale that guys tell.

He's a huge Tit.

Anyone who speeds through Town is a Tit.

I saw a Woman on her phone yesterday whilst riding around Town on my bike, hugely crowded Spitalfields, queues of cars, hundreds of people walking and hundreds on bikes.
Still she thought she was above any safety for other road/pedestrians and really CGAS about anyone else, thats what I think about Guy in this instance, he really couldn't GAS about anyone else.

Tit.

hora

HOWEVER the beeb again reporting. Flat out? Does that really mean 180 in a car round there? Hes good on a bike but in a car. I imagine flat out was a tongue in cheek description.

Stock Scooby STI gets 166 so it seems plausible.

I like Guy, but what he's done (or not done, maybe) is fairly wrong in my book! 180 on any public road is madness, and if he gets caught, it should be jail time.

I don't think you could(or should) do 180 on open bits of the isle without getting a talking to from the plod. The limit is the limit, not the safe speed at which you can drive that section of road, and 180 is dangerous driving no matter if the road has a limit or not!

You don't have a human right to drive a car, it a privilege, and one you have provided you're trained adequately and follow the rules of the road (highway code). Regardless of how the limit was set, you have to follow it. Don't and your in the wrong*! Simples!

(*try arguing in court that the limit was too low, and see where that gets you!)

What if....he wasn't telling the truth. It's certainly what I'd be telling the Inspector of IOM when he comes enquiring. Maybe it's a garnished tale, you know the kind of tale that guys tell.

Ah! The Edinburgh defence.

I find it really odd to be agreeing with both Molgrips and Maxtorque - how is that possible?

I am advocating setting speed limits to appropriate values to suit modern driving conditions

Currently Edinburgh is trying to roll out almost blanket 20mph limits. I live in one of the early trial areas and whilst some streets make sense and see that limit stuck to, others do not and even the Police pay no attention to it.

Out of interest, how many of those on this thread have driven the TT circuit? I've probably done 30+ laps and 180 anywhere without the roads being closed and marshalled is lunacy. There is just too much objective danger. Mr Martin is a pillock.

I am advocating setting speed limits to appropriate values to suit modern driving conditions

No never. Ever. Even racing drivers, Police response, etc make mistakes. Ontop of this I don't trust anyone to be able to drive safely at speed on any road.

Ontop of driver error you'll always have mechanical failure too.

Please feel free to speed on close-circuits/public roads and race tracks but not NOT on the same roads that I cycle, drive, cross, visit or leave near to.

I didn't think you could get points on your license for speeding in the IoM, just epic fines.

Edit: You can get banned, though.

He could go and talk to the Prosecutor- they wont understand a word hes saying (as I don't) so might let him off 😆

Wow, some of you fellas are really getting your knickers in a twist about a "story" in a newspaper. When I were a lad every one claimed that their moped did 70mph on the flat but we all knew it wasn't really true.
Until there is some actual evidence of the actual speed, on the actual road rather than just a newspaper piece can I suggest that people stop foaming at the mouth?

Calm down dear!

I'm not advocating setting the motorway speed limit to 250 mph, i'm talking about being reasonable and sensible.

So hows about oh, lets say 85mph, a speed at which most of europe already drives legally, a speed at which a huge majority of uk drivers already drive illegally, a speed at which a modern car is completely and utterly unstressed.

hora I don't trust anyone to be able to drive safely at speed on any road.

What sort of ridiculous clap trap is this^^^^ Are you suggesting we make the speed limit zero mph because drivers are poor?

"at speed" means nothing.

I' ve driven at 223mph, i've spun a car 14 times at 160mph on ice, i've overtaken a police car doing 150mph, i've had a tyre fail at 170mph. I've driven cars at 100mph, sideways between trees on mud and gravel.

But I've also sat at zero mph for hrs in traffic jams, sat behind people incapable of overtaking a tractor (doing 15mph), and people who run cyclists and other road users clean off the road due to inattention, even at 12mph.

And in 25 years of driving, i've crashed precisely zero times (on the public road)

So how fast do you think it is safe for me to drive on the motorway? 30, 40,50,60,70 or 85 mph??

That is the point really. Arbitrary speed limits should be set sensibly and enforced (rather than ignored as is the current uk motorway situation, where even the traffic police say "you're ok up to about 85 in good conditions").

Right now we have a balmy legal situation where we are effectively saying to drivers, "It's OK to speed and break the law on Motorways" but not anywhere else?

That's a bit like it's fine to stab someone to death on Thursday, but you'd get locked up for doing it on Tuesday.........

No wonder drivers are increasingly ignoring the lower limits where it REALLY matters (rather than the arbitrary lower limits put in place to make politicians and civil servants happy)

I think I know what you mean, Hora, but you did just say "Down with appropriate speed limits!".

I refer you to

drive safely [b]at speed[/b]

I' ve driven at 223mph, i've spun a car 14 times at 160mph on ice, i've overtaken a police car doing 150mph, i've had a tyre fail at 170mph. I've driven cars at 100mph, sideways between trees on mud and gravel.

So the salesman from Basildon in his company A4, Tim from Edinburgh and Jane from Croydon can all drive at 3x etc the speed limit if its dry, sunny and quiet?

How do you trust their ability, their judgement, their hydration on the day? Or do you propose road super licences?

I don't trust anyone. Sorry. Keep the limits low- it protects the majority against themselves.

For the record I too like speed where its appropriate but I've always said this: I trust my driving, I don't trust others driving.

Is there any way we can sort of.... weed out the petrol heads and boyracer apologists from the forum..?

Massive bans, or perhaps arrange a sham group ride for 'motoring enthusiasts' and then round 'em up and bury them in a big pit of boiling tar..?
These muppets that seem to think our public roads are playgrounds for their boyhood dreams turn my ****ing stomach

(FWIW I'm not a Guy Martin fan but this I reckon this story is probably total bollocks)

[quote=maxtorque said]
I' ve driven at 223mph, i've spun a car 14 times at 160mph on ice, i've overtaken a police car doing 150mph, i've had a tyre fail at 170mph. I've driven cars at 100mph, sideways between trees on mud and gravel.

You are the Stig's fantasist cousin and I claim my steak and chips.

Edit: Reminded me of [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tears_in_rain_monologue ]this[/url]

genius, I was just thinking the same 😆

I' ve driven at 223mph, i've spun a car 14 times at 160mph on ice, i've overtaken a police car doing 150mph, i've had a tyre fail at 170mph. I've driven cars at 100mph, sideways between trees on mud and gravel. I've… seen things you people wouldn't believe… Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched c-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhäuser Gate. All those… moments… will be lost in time, like tears… in… rain. Time… to die…

Damn! too slow!

hora
So the salesman from Basildon in his company A4, Tim from Edinburgh and Jane from Croydon can all drive at 3x etc the speed limit if its dry, sunny and quiet?

How do you trust their ability, their judgement, their hydration on the day? Or do you propose road super licences?

How do they do this in Germany?

"But I've done... But I've driven at.... I'm still alive so I'm fine... No one died... "

BlahdeflippinBlah.

Hooray for you...

What a twunt.

I used to work in traffic management road safety for a local authority. I've seen a 60 dropped to a 40 for no other reason than some locals thought people were speeding.
[i]
How is that supposed to work, exactly? The people who ignore speed limits because they, presumably, believe they're too low, are they suddenly going to fall in line when the limits are even lower?[/i]

It does work as we've had the speed limits around where I live systematically reduced for years. When they see a 40mph sign, they'll perhaps push it up to 50mph, but when its dropped to 30mph, they'll only push it to 40ish. (excepting the idiots) Its the same point made earlier and is designed to slow drivers like women shouting at their kids in the back. (for example) Sorry Ladies! 😀

yunki - Member
Is there any way we can sort of.... weed out the petrol heads and boyracer apologists from the forum..?

yes please, just about getting sick of the fume sniffers posting their fantasist bollox 👿

How do they do this in germany?

It's worth pointing out that any "they manage this in the rest of Europe" argument should be tempered with the fact that by most measures our roads are actually pretty safe compared to the rest of Europe.

Even compared to Germany:

4.3 Road fatalities per 100,000 inhabitants per year
6.9 Road fatalities per 100,000 vehicles per year
4.9 Road fatalities per 1 billion vehicle-km

UK:

3.5 Road fatalities per 100,000 inhabitants per year
6.2 Road fatalities per 100,000 vehicles per year
4.3 Road fatalities per 1 billion vehicle-km

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate

(of course there are plenty of compounding factors at play here, not just speed limits)

I' ve driven at 223mph, i've spun a car 14 times at 160mph on ice, i've overtaken a police car doing 150mph, i've had a tyre fail at 170mph. I've driven cars at 100mph, sideways between trees on mud and gravel.

Can I touch you?

It^^^^ was mean't to be tongue in cheek! That was my point!

i.e. how do we set the arbitrary limits when we know nothing about any individual using those roads at any given moment.

Right now we have the worst of all cases, where it's OK to speed sometimes or in some places, but not in others, where drivers crash and say "it's OK i wasn't speeding" because they crashed going slower than some arbitrary numbers on an arbitrary sign. And where drivers are not taught roadcraft, and so have to use a small metal sign as the main arbiter of their speed, no matter what........

Doing 180mph in a 40mph [b]is[/b] stupid, but it is not "dangerous" necessarily (as it is the road conditions dictate risk, not the speed limit)

The "Law of our land" is a collection of general rules than help people stay safe and "moral". They are not fixed in stone, they are not absolute:

For example, if you shoot someone dead in cold blood, you will be charged for murder. However if at the same time as you shot them, they were stabbing your wife to death, then i suspect you wouldn't. In both cases your actions were identical, but morally and hence legally, there was a world difference.

Before 1967 in the UK, it was illegal to be Gay! If we just followed the law regardless, that would also be the case today. So would you suggest that repealing Laws in the light of changes in broad society is a good thing.

The LAW has to be black and white. i.e. 40mph = legal, 40.000000001 = illegal, but the rest of the world doesn't work like that, it is much more grey scale. When we used to have real, human police officers, they could apply that greyscale filter to the law, at the point of contact, using their judgement.

With increasing electronic justice we have lost that effect. ie. <40 = LEGAL, >40 = ILLEGAL, regardless of the situation. And the knock on effect has been to put much more focus on the absolute letter of the law.

In 1965, UK speed limits were set and introduced.

At the time, cars looked like this:

[img] [/img]

Is anyone going to suggest there is the same level of risk travelling at 70mph in that^^^ or say a current Fiesta?

Our cars, our roads, our technology and even our social habits have changed enourmously in the last 50 years since the introduction of those blanket limits, and to suggest that the limits set then (which incidentally were set by a pretty arbitrary method at the time)

Wiki says:

In 2008 14% of collisions reported to the police had a speed related contributory factor (either "exceeding the speed limit" or "travelling too fast for conditions") reported rising to 24% for fatal accidents and 25% of all road deaths

So even for the case of death, just 1/4 of those deaths were directly linked to excessive speed (note that includes crashes occurring under the arbitrary limit as well)

All that the current law does is criminalise the average person, who is going about their business in a basically morally sound manner:

[url= http://www.motoringresearch.com/car-news/80mph-now-default-uk-motorway-speed-limit-0826947932 ]80mph is default Mway speed says survey[/url]

Look at that^^^ over half the people using the roads checked are breaking the law! So, either 50% of our society are criminals and need to be punished, or perhaps maybe, the law is a little out of date? Which would you suggest is the correct answer?

Can I touch you?

It would appear that you will need to be quick

In 1965, UK speed limits were set and introduced.
At the time, cars looked like this:
Is anyone going to suggest there is the same level of risk travelling at 70mph in that^^^ or say a current Fiesta?

Turning that argument around, you are suggesting that we are "too safe" and we should increase our speed limits until driving on the motorway in a current Fiesta is roughly as safe as driving a Ford Anglia at 70mph.

Risk Compensation 101.

In 1965 there were 7,952 fatalities on the road (at time when there were only 11.7 million licensed vehicles).

In 2013 there were [i]only[/i] 1,713 fatalities, about a fifth of the 1965 death toll, despite the number of licensed vehicle increasing to 35 million.

Why would you want to reverse that trend?

Hasn't Martin got form for this sort of thing?

In his book, he mentions getting fined for speeding in a van, only avoiding a ban when he had letters explaining that he'd lose his job otherwise, and then arrested again for driving illegally, and again getting off as it would affect his job (this time filming with Ch4)

GrahamS

Why would you want to reverse that trend?

Did you miss the point that we are ALREADY exceeding the 70mph limit?

(IE, those shiney new "low" casualty rates are already set by more than half the people driving EXCEEDING the 70 mph limit (and i'm going to suggest, that a high proportion of drivers are currently exceeding the 30 & 40mph limits by some margin too)

Doing 180mph in a 40mph is stupid, but it is not "dangerous" necessarily (as it is the road conditions dictate risk, not the speed limit)

The likelihood of, and severity of a crash at 180mph is far higher than at 40mph. It is dangerous, even if you're the stig on a straight road.

You want to make your own mind up what's dangerous and not while riding your mounting bike in the middle of a forest, go for it, but when you're in charge of 2 tonnes of steel that can not only kill you, but any one around you, maybe you should follow the experts advice and stick to the speed limit!

Did you miss the point that we are ALREADY exceeding the 70mph limit?

Yes I saw that point. The thing is that I actually agree with you that motorways are pretty safe compared to other roads and that raising the speed limit there would probably only cost a few lives and may have the knock-on benefit of increasing compliance with other speed limits, potentially reducing casualties elsewhere.

But for that to happen they would need to increase the speed limit AND [i]fully[/i] enforce it. Otherwise the same 50% that default to 80 in 70s will just do 90 in the 80s and nothing else will change.

(IE, those shiney new "low" casualty rates are already set by more than half the people driving EXCEEDING the 70 mph limit (and i'm going to suggest, that a high proportion of drivers are currently exceeding the 30 & 40mph limits by some margin too)

Suddenly this sketch just popped into my head, particularly John Cleese's line.

It's all about appropriateness. There are stretches of local road that are ostensibly National Speed Limit, however no-one in their right mind would drive at sixty down a country road with sharp hairpin bends.

Likewise, doing 180mph on a public road is very, very naughty but there is a difference between driving fast on an empty motorway with miles of visibility than driving flat out weaving around cars on a busy road. Even the law recognises this.

That said, I cannot (honestly) recall the last time I broke a published speed limit...

I'd just like to add that I can legally drive at the heady rate of 75mph about once a week when I cross the border into Ireland. Since most of you will never experience this, here's a video which will hopefully convey what it's like.

I'm Tom Cruise obviously, Robert Duvall is the British legal system, and the admiring onlookers are the Garda Siochana.

CBA to read the last 4 pages but has anyone used the term 'making progress' yet?

[quote=mrchrispy said]CBA to read the last 4 pages but has anyone used the term 'making progress' yet?

Yes chief.

He was just trying to get home, he left the log burner on.

renosteve maybe you should follow the experts advice and stick to the speed limit!

So you'll be fine when i plow into your on your bike in a 40mph limit doing 40mph, killing you, but don't worry, i wasn't speeding, so that's all fine then......

Or perhaps you'd prefer me to, er, maybe look where i was going, at set my speed appropriate to the current road conditions (which if there are some people riding their bikes might be just 5mph), rather than to some small painted numbers of a sign??

And as a result of learning proper Roadcraft, at 2am, on an empty motorway, in a car that can do 155mph, perhaps, just perhaps i could maybe push the boat out and drive at ooh, say 75mph?

The more we dumb drivers down, the more we fail to put in place suitably severe penalties for truly inappropriate actions (like, oh i don't know, say doing 180mph in a 40mph zone ;-), the more we simply follow (or ignore) speed limits like sheep, we will continue to kill and injure people out of ignorance.

GrahamS - Member

But for that to happen they would need to increase the speed limit AND fully enforce it. Otherwise the same 50% that default to 80 in 70s will just do 90 in the 80s and nothing else will change.

That's probably not true. The question is, is everyone doing 80 on a motorway doing the limit + 10, or do they just think 80 is a sensible speed. Obviously, some balance of the two. I don't know what the actual result would be but it won't be that simple. And there'd likely be a benefit transferred back to slower roads if it gets people back to respecting limits.

Limits are very contentious, it seems hard to have a grownup conversation about it but I think we can probably all agree, it's not all that simple. At the moment we certainly do have a situation where a huge number of people ignore parts of the law on the road, and where people can make sensible (if not necessarily correct) arguments about that. And once you ignore one law in one place, you get ends of wedges etc.

I think it's entirely possible that increasing some limits would give net safety benefits. I don't know if it would. But what are the odds that the current speed limit is the perfect balance?

Out of interest, how many of those on this thread have driven the TT circuit? I've probably done 30+ laps and 180 anywhere without the roads being closed and marshalled is lunacy.

I have and there are a few places over the mountain where 180 on clear roads on a really fast bike would be ok. My bike wasn't all that fast but I did hit 150mph several times when visiting the IOM.

So you'll be fine when i plow into your on your bike in a 40mph limit doing 40mph, killing you, but don't worry, i wasn't speeding, so that's all fine then......

You've made your point. You need to drive safely - we all appreciate that. No need to keep ramming it home. No-one is advocating focusing on speed AT THE EXPENSE of safe driving. Consistent sensible speed is a part of safe sensible predictable driving - as wrote earlier.

perhaps i could maybe push the boat out and drive at ooh, say 75mph?

Sure, it's safe. As long as you don't fall asleep at the wheel, have a blowout etc. That could happen at 70, of course, but the consequences will be that bit worse at 75.

But even ignoring that (even though it's important) the issue is how to legislate for that.

At least he wasn't towing a caravan....

piedi di formaggio - Member

At least he wasn't towing a caravan....

The good old "Indicator of invulnerability force-field" in action there.

molgrips
No-one is advocating focusing on speed AT THE EXPENSE of safe driving

Well, with the exception of our entire Government, our Law makers, any politician you could care to mention, pretty much every "road safety" group in the last 20 years, your mate "dave" down the pub, and Edd the duck, but OTHER than them, no, you are right, no-one is focusing on speed at the expense of safe driving.......

😉

That's probably not true. The question is, is everyone doing 80 on a motorway doing the limit + 10, or do they just think 80 is a sensible speed. Obviously, some balance of the two.

Yeah I'd say some balance of the two sounds right.

I think most drivers "know" the arguments that [i]all[/i] speedos over-read and that speed cameras [i]never[/i] trigger below limit + 10%.

So they self-justify that 80 indicated is within a mph or so of the [i]actual[/i] prosecutable limit and they have some wiggle room.

That same effect would happen at an 80mph limit as well.

So one way to counter that is introduce a new higher limit, but enforce it much more strictly (i.e. average speed cameras and on the overhead gantries).

That decriminalises the majority and restores some respect for the limit.

molgrips - Member

Sure, it's safe. As long as you don't fall asleep at the wheel, have a blowout etc. That could happen at 70, of course, but the consequences will be that bit worse at 75.

Yup, but that's where it gets interesting because of the possible offsets- I think this comes down to whether you believe there'd be any, and how big they'd be.

It's like cycle helmet compulsion, a bit- there's a good statistical argument that making bike helmets mandatory has an overall negative health benefit because less people get head injuries, but less people ride in the first place. Unintended consequences.

So, if you can increase motorway limits by 10mph, say, and that has the result of convincing a large number of drivers that speed limits make sense and deserve their respect, then it's entirely possible that transfers back to having less people speed in towns where it's probably more important. Or, perhaps not.

GrahamS - Member

I think most drivers "know" the arguments that all speedos over-read and that speed cameras never trigger below limit + 10%.

So they self-justify that 80 indicated is within a mph or so of the actual prosecutable limit and they have some wiggle room.

That same effect would happen at an 80mph limit as well.

Well. Is it so simple? The same thinking could work quite differently for many- drivers could think "80 is a sensible speed for this road, and also, it's within the wiggle room" and so go at 80- that doesn't necessarily mean that they want to go at 90. It's just that they've satisfied all their factors for going at the speed they want to go.

I'll speak for myself here- on an open dry motorway I'm totally happy cruising at 80, like most people I reckon. But it's not the limit or the wriggle room that keeps me to 80 instead if 90, it's just that it feels like an appropriate speed. Decreasing the limit or decreasing the wiggle room could cause me to slow down but increasing either wouldn't cause me to go faster, I think. (perhaps it could, if everyone else went faster, not sure) And I'm not a beautiful and unique snowflake

No doubt some people would go at 90. But how many, is the question.

At least he wasn't towing a caravan....

😯

Clearly the caravan driver's fault (obviously), but I couldn't help think that at this moment:

[img] [/img]

It seemed pretty obvious what that dozy wazzock was about to do and the HGV driver could have started slowing down and/or sounding his horn.

I suspect that if he had been on a motorbike, rather than nice in safe in the cab of an HGV, then he'd have been a bit sharper on his brakes regardless of who was in the right.

At least he wasn't towing a caravan....

Clearly the caravan driver's fault (obviously), but I couldn't help think that at this moment:

It seemed pretty obvious what that dozy wazzock was about to do and the HGV driver could have started slowing down and/or sounding his horn.

POSTED 1 MINUTE AGO # REPORT-POST

Me too, perfect example of one of those moments when you have two choices. Either engage self preservation, accept the other driver is a hazard but just drop back and let him pull in or, option two, just sit with the same gap, be belligerent and wait for the inevitable to unfold in front of you. I'd go for the former option.

with the exception

Hmm.. Ate they saying that if you slow down that you don't need to bother paying attention? No. Are you suggesting people are automatically inferring that?

FWIW I was referring to the debate on here about road safety. I do agree that the amount of education we receive pre and post test is pitiful, but that's another argument and doesn't lead to arguing for a raise of speed limit.

I would not mind at all if they installed variable limits on open country sections of motorway and raised the limit to 80 when it's quiet. But s for enforcement.. Well.. Tricky really.

(perhaps it could, if everyone else went faster, not sure)

I think that is a pretty key point.

If everyone else is doing 80ish then 80ish feels pretty safe because there is little relative movement and closing speeds are low.

Unless your car is pretty knackered then IME there really isn't that much difference in the feel of driving on a clear open road at 80 compared to 70, or 90 compared to 80. The difference is only apparent when you encounter something else (like a slower vehicle or a hazard in the road).

(Conversely I regularly drive along a stretch of the A1 that is a 50 limit and sticking to the limit there can feel dangerous as you regularly have cars closing on you at 30mph+. Not to mention the nobbers trying to encourage you by driving four inches from your bumper).

GrahamS - Member

I think that is a pretty key point.

If everyone else is doing 80ish then 80ish feels pretty safe because there is little relative movement and closing speeds are low.

Yup But otoh, on an empty motorway 80 still feels pretty much right. Then again, maybe a lot of that comes from past experience and if I just got used to 90, then 90 would feel right. Not sure about that either. Psychology.

It is basically the 85th percentile thing.

our Law makers

And another thing - you want people to pass laws prohibiting inattentive driving? Using phones? Driving carelessly? They already have.

If you've got ideas on how to enforce them economically, I'm all ears as I'm sure they will be too.

The reason they have speed cameras and traps is that that's all they can really do, currently. They don't have a choice but to focus on it. I don't think that means that they think it'll make us all perfectly safe. Most policymakers aren't that stupid, I'm sure.

Using phones?

Don't worry - [url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32337990 ]that number has fallen 40% since 2010[/url]*

.

*Sneaky Subtext: the number of [i]fines issued[/i] has fallen - possibly due to lack of policing and possibly because offenders who are caught are now offered a course instead.

Anecdotally the number of offenders seems to be on the rise. Perhaps in a couple of years we'll have someone saying that since more than 50% do it then the default is now to be on the phone, so it is daft to criminalise so many people and we should relax that law?

Me too, perfect example of one of those moments when you have two choices. Either engage self preservation, accept the other driver is a hazard but just drop back and let him pull in or, option two, just sit with the same gap, be belligerent and wait for the inevitable to unfold in front of you. I'd go for the former option.

Yep, rational brain working correctly. I'm afraid I would have done the same as the lorry driver though.

And as a result of learning proper Roadcraft, at 2am, on an empty motorway, in a car that can do 155mph, perhaps, just perhaps i could maybe push the boat out and drive at ooh, say 75mph?

/tweaks erect nipples.

Watched the video

One of those driver towing in the wrong lane and trucker just rammed them because he was in a big truck and he could

Both arseholes but the caravans fault I would give that 65- 35 as a claim as the trucker could easily have avoided that but chose not to

One less caravan, no one injured. 😀

So do we all agree he was stupid allegedly driving at 180mph in the location shown in this thread where he should be doing 40 mph?

See its that kind of statement that annoys me. You are just as stupid thinking as long as you are doing 40mph you are ok.

40 mph past a pub is not ok. 180 mph past a pub is ok if you know no one will step out on to the road. 40mph is not ok if you think there is a chance some one will.

I would rather have Guy Martin pass me on a dual carriage way doing twice the speed limit (as he will be concentrating, and is used to doing that speed) than, Molgrips trundling along, saving fuel, taking his time, not concentrating on what he is doing 😆

At least doing 180mph he wouldnt have time to react to the person walking out of the pub. Kill them doing 40mph and I guess you have time to react and slow down just enough to make it hurt for them, and make yourself feel a bit guilty that you could have stopped if you were going slower.

Please tell me that was written as a joke
The last paragraph is incomprehensible.

And as a result of learning proper Roadcraft, at 2am, on an empty motorway, in a car that can do 155mph, perhaps, just perhaps i could maybe push the boat out and drive at ooh, say 75mph?

The LIMIT is 70! God damn it, look up the word "limit"! 😉

There's always going to be people who think 70 is too slow, and others where 70 is clearly too fast (OAPs, new drivers, people towing caravans or heavy loads). The limit has to be somewhere, and I'm sure a bunch of people cleverer than us lot came up with it.

You are just as stupid thinking as long as you are doing 40mph you are ok.

No one thinks this... but you're much, much, much, much, much more ok than at 180.