Forum menu
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...
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 - MemberJimjam 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.’
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.
horaHOWEVER 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
AT speed.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)
GrahamSWhy 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?