I.
Don’t
Care.

Seriously though – if there was a way in which speed limits could actually be enforced then there would be more probability of getting some of them raised.

Do you think enforcement by flying pig would be good enough for them to consider raising the limits?

scotroutes – Member

ahwiles » rebel12 – Member
There’s not one person commenting on this forum that’s never driven over the speed limit…
just a thought, who here would accept a GPS tracker/cameras/accelerometers/whatever in their car for a reduction in their insurance premiums?
what discount would you accept?
me: yes, 10%
you:…?

me:yes, 0%
Make them compulsory fitment to all vehicles. Accidents would reduce in both number and severity and ALL our insurance premiums would decrease.

Absolutely no chance, over my dead body. Full no claims, IAM discount, no points so insurance cheap.

I doubt whether this would help much. The only thing that’s going to reduce accidents further from where we are at the moment is a combination of better driver education, and more police on the road checking for drink driving, tailgating and general poor driving.

Do you realise that 1 in 6 deaths on UK roads last year was attributable to someone being drunk behind the wheel. If the police focused their efforts here rather than the ‘Money Spinner’ that is speeding then I’m sure we’d all be much safer.

Yep…ASCs covering all trunk roads. With a variable speed limit that could go above present limits if the road, weather and traffic conditions allow.

And busy roads to have an “IAM Trained Drivers Only” lane.

aracer – Member

Something tells me your insurance is rather more expensive than mine – which is interesting…

v minor car park bump 5 years ago, girlfriend similar, car parked on the street in what is considered an ‘interesting’ area.

£800.

rebel12 – Member

Do you realise that 1 in 6 deaths on UK roads last year was attributable to someone being drunk behind the wheel.

so, 5 in 6 deaths involved drivers who were sober?

Yes, and 93% of KSI accidents didn’t have excessive speed as a cause.

KSI?

But as we’ve already discussed, speed is a contributory factor to the seriousness of any accident.

KSI = Killed or Seriously Injured

KSI – Killed or Seriously Injured – sorry beat me to it 🙂

I am not reading 15 pages so will someone please give me a sit rep as to what is happening in hear?
It looks like its about speeding.
My view is if you think saving time on your journey by speeding is ok then you are a selfish prick.
I come to this conclusion as you must think saving a little time in you own life is worth ending someone else’s.

+1 but i expect the other now 16 pages are resplendent in the finest bellendery arguing to the contrary.

You weren’t fast enough

scotroutes – Member

rebel12 » KSI – Killed or Seriously Injured – sorry beat me to it

You weren’t fast enough

Now there’s a first 😉

speed may well not be a cause, but it’s a complicating factor.

crashing at 50 involves twice (?) as much energy as a crash at 40.

edit: 56% more energy according to my second attempt at the maths, do of course check this…

I’m amazed how there’s only a few people on this thread who have actually admitted to speeding? Guess there’s either a lot of people hiding something on here or maybe STW really is the holy grail of slow and steady motoring.

Probably most people have the common sense not to admit to illegal activity in a public forum.

I’m amazed how there’s only a few people on this thread who have actually admitted to speeding? Guess there’s either a lot of people hiding something on here or maybe STW really is the holy grail of slow and steady motoring.

One could draw the conclusion that STW is the holy grail of driving gods from some of the contributors. But that would also be bollocks.

I’ve had two speeding convictions. Then I grew up and became a better driver.

Do I speed?

I dunno. Probably. But I’m too busy rolling fags and sorting out work on the phone to notice. I try my best though.

v minor car park bump 5 years ago, girlfriend similar, car parked on the street in what is considered an ‘interesting’ area.

Which would appear to make you a far higher insurance risk than driving at 57mph in a 50 does.

My view is if you think saving time on your journey by speeding is ok then you are a selfish prick

You’re a selfish pr**k – there you go.

There’s not one person commenting on this forum that’s never driven over the speed limit including you.

Its easy to quote only part of my point. It is selfish endangering other people because you are in a rush or have just decided to speed. Its simply not fair. Its ok 99% of the time, no harm done ect ect. But is speeding only selfish when you kill someone?

And i have never gone above the speed limit on public roads when driving. Infact i have never driven on public road never even had a licence. so its pretty safe to say i have NEVER broken the speed limit

is speeding failing to look properly or failing to judge other person’s path or speed only selfish when you kill someone?

FTFY

Some speed limits are however just silly. 70mph on a motorway??

So are you not a selfish prick if you deliberately break that?

So are you not a selfish prick if you deliberately break that?

One can believe that a limit is silly but still feel responsible enough to drive within it.

aracer – Member

Some speed limits are however just silly. 70mph on a motorway??

So are you not a selfish prick if you deliberately break that?

My theory behind that was car safety is getting better. The human body is not getting any better at being crashed into. So therefore if when that limit was imposed a risk assessment was done and they arrived at the conclusion that 70 was a good limit. If that same risk assessment was done today i am sure the figure would be either much higher or the risk much lower.

I was people would quote all relevant parts…. maybe i souldent of called you speeders selfish pricks. sorry

Which would appear to make you a far higher insurance risk than driving at 57mph in a 50 does.

Which ignores any of a multitude of different factors which might make one premium lower than another.

Which ignores any of a multitude of different factors which might make one premium lower than another.

Yes – but it appears doing 57mph in a 50 doesn’t make any difference at all to the insurance risk, whilst awhiles’ factors do.

One can believe that a limit is silly but still feel responsible enough to drive within it.

I thought we were discussing road safety rather than obedience to the law? I have restrained myself from asking whether people did their archery practice on a Sunday.

57mph in a 50

I’ve lost count of the amount of times you’ve written that now. Maybe it’s time to let it go.

So therefore if when that limit was imposed a risk assessment was done and they arrived at the conclusion that 70 was a good limit. If that same risk assessment was done today i am sure the figure would be either much higher or the risk much lower.

Cars were worse back then, but there was far less traffic on the roads. Consensus seems to be that the increase in car safety is balanced out by the number of cars. Not to mention the number of people who are now capable of blasting through the speed limit with a twitch of the right foot.

My theory behind that was car safety is getting better. The human body is not getting any better at being crashed into. So therefore if when that limit was imposed a risk assessment was done and they arrived at the conclusion that 70 was a good limit. If that same risk assessment was done today i am sure the figure would be either much higher or the risk much lower.

Sorry, but the opposite is true due to increased traffic flow.
The number of vehicles likely to be involved in any accident is far greater. This leads to an increased chance of higher casualties, and also a larger number of vehicle journeys being disrupted by the clear up operation after the incident.
COBA shows it’s bad for the economy, so future speed limits will be lower.

Despite all the wonderful work that automotive and mechanical engineers are doing to produce faster and safer cars to sell, road speed limits will always be dependant on the design speed of the roads they drive on as specified by civil engineers and transport planners.
And there is some wonderful work ongoing involving increased overall traffic flow achieved by decreased (or variable) maximum speeds.

molgrips – Member

So therefore if when that limit was imposed a risk assessment was done and they arrived at the conclusion that 70 was a good limit. If that same risk assessment was done today i am sure the figure would be either much higher or the risk much lower.

Cars were worse back then, but there was far less traffic on the roads. Consensus seems to be that the increase in car safety is balanced out by the number of cars. Not to mention the number of people who are now capable of blasting through the speed limit with a twitch of the right foot.

Correct, the figure should now be higher. The average stopping distance of a car from 70mph in the mid 60’s when the 70mph limit was introduced was 75m. Today it’s around 37m – less than half the distance.

Cars are also so much safer – hell very few people even wore seat belts in the 60’s. There is more traffic on the roads but the road surfaces, conditions, signage and everything else is so much better than it was back then. So is the level of driver training – a driving test in the 60’s was a very basic affair.

I’d say that the ideal speed limit on the motorway should be around the 90mph mark at quiet times of the day, reverting to less if its busy or the conditions are bad (controlled by signs on overhead gantry’s), with a minimum speed limit of around 55mph in place at all times. Most people already seem to do between 80-90 anyway and yet motorways are still by a long way our safest roads mile for mile.

I just want to pick up on the speed limit being a target not a limit, that’s wrong. In the driving test you are supposed to drive near the limit but that doesn’t make it not a limit. Go do the test and drive just over the limit most of the time, you’d fail because it’s a limit not a target.

chvck – Member

I just want to pick up on the speed limit being a target not a limit, that’s wrong. In the driving test you are supposed to drive near the limit but that doesn’t make it not a limit. Go do the test and drive just over the limit most of the time, you’d fail because it’s a limit not a target.

In good conditions you could view the speed limit as a target speed. It’s essential that people get a move on if they can so that the traffic actually flows. Plenty of people fail their driving tests for not driving at speeds approaching the speed limit when conditions allow.

It’s completely selfish to drive at say 40 in a 60 limit when conditions would easily allow 60+ Either pull over and let people pass, or go and get some more training to make you a confident driver. Sadly these people often seem just as oblivious to the large queue that’s built up behind them as they do to their own driving shortcomings.

And equally it might be considered selfish (in a dangerous way) to drive 60 PLUS in a 60 limit.

So perhaps you need more training, in particular about observation of road signs and the highway code?

t’s completely selfish to drive at say 40 in a 60 limit when conditions would easily allow 60+

What about lorries? They’re also a lot longer than a car, should they keep pulling over?

It’s essential that people get a move on if they can so that the traffic actually flows.

What makes traffic flow better is most people travelling at the same speed. The faster people go, the more braking is required so the more the speed changes. When queues of cars brake it slows everyone down far more than when just one car on its own brakes.

That’s the principle behind variable speed limits.

I’m amazed how there’s only a few people on this thread who have actually admitted to speeding? Guess there’s either a lot of people hiding something on here or maybe STW really is the holy grail of slow and steady motoring.

I have speeded (sped?) in the past, and yes I was a selfish prick. Today however, after growing up a bit and maturing, and realising that my previous behaviour was not just selfish but also self-defeating and pointless, I drive pretty much at the speed limits. In fact, shock horror, a huge amount of the time I drive well below the speed limits, 25 is typical in built up 30 zones, 50 on NSL, and 60-70 on the motorway. It saves me lots of money, lots of stress, and costs me very little time.

It is amazing how much calmer it is to drive normally rather than imagining every trip is vanishing point.

It is amazing how much calmer it is to drive normally rather than imagining every trip is vanishing point.

Unless you’re a IAM qualified speedster, in which case if they drive at the speed limit it’s so boring they risk falling asleep 🙂

rebel12 – Member

It’s completely selfish to drive at say 40 in a 60 limit when conditions would easily allow 60+

(‘morning all 🙂 )

why?

didn’t your advanced training teach you to expect to get stuck behind horses/milk floats/bikes/trucks/cattle/classic cars/cars running a space-saver/old people/etc. and not to get stressed out when you do?

especially when your training had a slant towards fast-driving – surely getting ‘held up’ is inevitable?

and wouldn’t a 30mph speed differential allow you to overtake pretty sharpish? – especially if the roads are so straight and clear an all.

(it is nice when people pull over, i do it myself – it’s a nice habit i made an effort to adopt when i lived in NZ, where literally EVERYONE does it, it’s amazing)