You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
These people are convinced they’re the safest drivers out there because they always drive at 5mph below the posted speed limit. In doing this, they never take their eyes off the speedo, the go from (say) a 40mph to a 30mph by standing the car on it’s nose at the limit change and then gradually, in a series of jerks and swerves and braking, they get it to 25mph again.
I don't consider myself a perfect driver, but I am somehow able to control my speed without staring at the speedo all the time. If the awesome drivers on here are so awesome that they can make their own rules, how come they can't keep tabs on their speed?
Cougar
Full MemberTwo separate claims here, the clicky says people think they’re above average which isn’t quite the same.
Yup. I have no doubt that I'm an above average driver. Not saying I'm a Driving God, it's just a criticism of general driving standards, the average is very low.
To be better than average you pretty much just have to drive to could-pass-a-driving-test standard, and pay attention.
I find it incredible that people complain bitterly about driving standards AND IN THE SAME THREAD argue that people should be allowed to drive at whatever speed they feel is appropriate. Can’t you see a flaw in that?
I see a flaw in that no-one's actually said that.
So what you’re saying is that he was a bad driver and needed to learn to pay attention? Not really anything to do with speed, it’s more about responsibility for your actions.
I'm just sharing an anecdote rather than opining on it. I thought it was curious, was all.
To be better than average you pretty much just have to drive to could-pass-a-driving-test standard, and pay attention.
I'd contest that. The general standard of driving in the UK is actually pretty good and the average isn't that low. Sure there are some real shockers and a reasonable number of not greats but, if the average standard was as bad as its often made out none of us would be driving around having not been involved in an accident and so on.
It's like the all cyclists area a menace thing, you remember the shockers, rarely the average never notice the shining examples (because if they stand out it's because something has gone wrong).
There are literally millions of journeys every day that go by without incident, that simply wouldn't happen if the average driver really was a liability.
As the sentiment goes - if it's everyone else, it's not anyone else.
I don’t consider myself a perfect driver, but I am somehow able to control my speed without staring at the speedo all the time. If the awesome drivers on here are so awesome that they can make their own rules, how come they can’t keep tabs on their speed?
Me too.
The one thing that’s pretty much always forgotten in these threads is others. Other people driving, walking, running, cycling etc. Limits are also there for them. You can claim to be a driving god with the reflex speed of a snake but, if somebody or something else does something unpredictable you’re as ****ed as the rest of us.
Low speeds are good because it takes less time to stop and normally there is less chance of serious injury and death when shit goes sideways. Nobody cares if you think road A should be a forty and not a thirty limit and because you’re super awesome you’ll drive at forty. No, stop being a dick.
Have to say, re controlling your speed without looking at the speedo, I had to change my opinion a bit on that when I got an automatic- it pretty much goes at the speed it wants to. Taking away that direct connection between engine and wheel speed makes a big difference, something that used to just be absolute reflex/background processing is now something that always takes a little thought. Oh you want to hold your speed going down this hill? Be a shame if I... upshifted for you.
dangeourbrain
Full Memberif the average standard was as bad as its often made out none of us would be driving around having not been involved in an accident and so on.
Things have to go very wrong for there to be an actual collision. "Nobody got hit" isn't a good metric for adequate driving. "Someone could have got hit" generally means things went exactly as badly wrong on the part of one driver, but other people or luck prevented it from becoming a collision.
Think of it from a cycling point of view- unless you take a pretty aggressive primary, you will be overtaken illegally close on pretty much every road ride. On my commute, actual good safe passes were the minority. Overtaking safely is a trivial job, a highway code basic, something you're supposed to have learned before you even start your lessons.
if somebody or something else does something unpredictable you’re as **** as the rest of us.
Low speeds are good because it takes less time to stop and normally there is less chance of serious injury and death when shit goes sideways. Nobody cares if you think road A should be a forty and not a thirty limit and because you’re super awesome you’ll drive at forty. No, stop being a dick.
The point I've eventually matured to. Having a lad who has just learned to drive was very informative as well. Shook me out of a few bad habits, including regularly being 1-2mph over the limit.
All traffic laws need enforcing, and we need a Police, court, DVLA and retest system to enable that to happen. I don't give a shit if a temporary ban for 12 points inconveniences you, if a punishment doesn't inconvenience you it's not a punishment. If I can only pick up 3 points in 33 years of driving, why can't you?
Electric cars likewise, they're so quiet that it's harder to judge speed. Happily they're fitted with a limiter so I just set that to whatever the limit is allowing for speedo error and lee way. In these parts I get the impression that almost everybody uses a limiter/regulator in the same way because I hardly ever feel the need to overtake and rarely find people on my bumper.
Most people drive pretty well when sober, not under the influence of anything else, not messing with the phone/gps/ICE or not going for it for whatever reason.
Edit: after our yellow vests put most of the fixed radars out of action the government changed tactic. There are now ordinary-looking cars being driven around by civilians with radars that measure and record the speed of every vehicle around them in both directions. So you might be being radared at any point you are shaing the road with a newish looking car. I think a lot of people have just thrown in the towel on going fast and just set the limiter in resignation.
I’d contest that. The general standard of driving in the UK is actually pretty good and the average isn’t that low.
And I'd contest that.
The general standard of driving in the UK is likely higher than in a lot of other countries, but it's not good enough. The number of collisions I see on a day-to-day basis is very low but the amount of random ****tery I see is off the chart.
My local Tesco is five minutes' walk away and I can say with a degree of confidence that if I were to drive down right now at 6pm on a Friday evening I'd have to make at least one evasive manoeuvre to avoid some Country and Western on the wrong side of the road or pulling out of a side street without looking or axing round a 90' blind corner at escape velocity.
Do you not think that's just because there's like a billion cars per square foot in this country. Well, a billion people per square foot who all have cars would be more accurate. Transplanted to another, more spacious country, we're probably awesome drivers.
Cougar
Wasn’t me asking it.
But yeah, you’re right. It’s essentially a honeypot, they’re setting you up to fail. I just wasn’t putting up with that crap, they deal with abject morons day in day out and aren’t programmed to field someone who has actually read THC in the last decade. #DrivingGod #Obvs
Yep but because
find it incredible that people complain bitterly about driving standards AND IN THE SAME THREAD argue that people should be allowed to drive at whatever speed they feel is appropriate. Can’t you see a flaw in that?
I see a flaw in that no-one’s actually said that.
As already mentioned the message given out is:
We only worry about people drinking/speeding/running red lights (because the last 2 are automated).. so everything else is implied to be fine.
which leads to
The general standard of driving in the UK is likely higher than in a lot of other countries, but it’s not good enough. The number of collisions I see on a day-to-day basis is very low but the amount of random ****tery I see is off the chart.
The main issue is actually the amount of random ****tery. Even measuring the general standard is incredibly subjective... is it per 1000 miles or per trip or ???
We seem to be high up on the random ****tery per trip based on my experience driving in god knows how many countries.
MoreCashThanDash
If I can only pick up 3 points in 33 years of driving, why can’t you?
Because I've driven carefully and considerately and in 35+ years never had a single point.
another may be five times over and more than capable of driving.
Do you drink and drive at five times over the limit???
If you drink appreciably more than the suggested maximum and then drive you are an arse in my opinion.
I see a flaw in that no-one’s actually said that.
It's being implied by what deltacharlie72 said and many others have said in the past.
There are literally millions of journeys every day that go by without incident, that simply wouldn’t happen if the average driver really was a liability.
I would argue that my Spidey Sense, slowing and huge swerve avoided the two drivers in two incidents today, rather than their driving being of an acceptable standard.
Where the hell do you lot drive that this makes up the majority of people you share the road with?!?
Given the thread I counted today on my way home, 9miles, no close passes, not even a dick pass over the blind brow where I absolutely expect it, actually no ****tery to speak of at all.
In a normal commute (3.5mi of country nsl Road, 5.5 of urban including passing 2 primary and 2 secondary schools) if I get one close pass it stands out, I reckon I get one a week most weeks.
Last week I did normal commute Monday, Hexham on Tuesday, Bude on Wednesday, Hexham Thursday and Preston on Friday that's about 1300mi of driving in the week. I remember one pillock avoiding a pheasant by passing it on the opposite side of the road round a blind bend on an nsl rather than using brakes or just hitting it.
In a previous life I drove class 1 Bradford to felixstowe and folkstone I'd see maybe one or occasionaly two near misses a day. In 500mi a day, every day. Either, and its absolutely possible, I've a higher level of tolerance for having to use my brakes and other peoples general dickery, or you really need to think about the common denominator in all these near misses you see.
I would argue that my Spidey Sense, slowing and huge swerve avoided the two drivers in two incidents today
And how many other drivers did you pass that you didn't need to avoid?
I hate speed cameras , I bitterly resent the tickets I've got
But that PCC is a dick, they make me moderate my behaviour and drive more sensibly, no matter how much I resent them
Where the hell do you lot drive that this makes up the majority of people you share the road with?!?
Greater Manchester, Lancashire, West Yorkshire, Cumbria
But that PCC is a dick
To be honest anyone who uses the phrase "war on motorists" should just have their driving licence removed permanently because they are bound to drive like a dick
It’s being implied by what deltacharlie72 said and many others have said in the past.
No, it's being inferred by you, you put it in capitals and everything.
"Many others in the past" is grasping, I don't recall anyone in the history of ever on STW arguing that they should be allowed to drive at whatever speed they want. Plenty have argued that numbers on poles are arbitrary bollocks and not fit for purpose, myself included. Plenty have argued that most people can't be trusted to make sensible choices, myself included. And plenty have argued that we need better driver training, myself oh you get the idea. But these are all a very long way away from claiming "we want to be able to do what we like" and it's disingenuous to be asserting otherwise.
C'mon Mols, you're normally our poster boy voice of reason on here. Straw-manning doesn't become you.
Dual carriageway limit is NSL which is 70mph for cars. You might choose to ignore speed limits but you should at least know what they are.
If a dual carriageway has a 30 limit then there’s probably an extraordinary reason for it.
Mebbe someone else needs a refresher on speed limits. 🙂
A speed limit of 30 miles per hour (48km/h) applies to all single and dual carriageways with street lights, unless there are signs showing otherwise.
If there is streel lighting on a dual carriageway, it is automatically 30mph, unless there are signs (and repeater signs) telling you otherwise.
Thus if you are travelling along a road with no street lighting and there is street lighting around a junction (for instance) (consisting of 3 or more Lamps, not more 183m apart) the limit would automatically change to 30 (with out need for signage) unless there was a repeater sign denoting another speed limit. And to avoid confusion, repeater 30mph limit signage is not allowed on roads with street lighting. I don't think it is required to place a 30mph sign at the start as the street lights automatic cause the speed restriction, but it is done as convention to make it clear.
Motorways are different to dual carriageways, thus they are national speed limit be default unless otherwise signposted (hence why a motorway has blue signage and has restrictions on what vehicles can travel on them)
I'd rather see a purge on drug drivers.
Road riding on my commute the smell of weed wafting from cars at 6am in the morning was frightening.
Speeding in urban areas is wrong. No ifs no buts. But on a clear country road with line of site where the limit was 60 dropping that limit to 50 or 40 seems pointless.
70mph 7am in the rain on a motorway legal
90mph at 10pm in the clear and dry illegal
I'd argue the latter is safer.
Inappropriate use of speed kills.
Look it's quite simple. If you are a Driving God the law doesn't apply to you because you are amazing.
70mph 7am in the rain on a motorway legal
90mph at 10pm in the clear and dry illegal
I’d argue the latter is safer.
I see where you are coming from but we have to count for the lowest common denominator, the common or garden ****wit. The vast majority of people seem to see the speed limit as a mandatory minimum requirement. It’s not, it is the maximum allowable speed depending on conditions. That’s way too complicated for a lot of people. If you had a variable, weather dependent speed limit, how would you enforce it?
Your clear sight line argument, how about hedgerows, field openings, crossroads and stopping distances? Are you taking these in to account when driving at sixty?
Road riding on my commute the smell of weed wafting from cars at 6am in the morning was frightening.
I know! Its especially noticeable when cycling but I’ve started to notice it while driving. If whatever you are smoking can make it into my car with its windows shut I think it’s safe to say you probably shouldn’t be smoking it while driving!
Of course the STW hippies will be along to say that weed is ok, lalalalala whatever....
If you had a variable, weather dependent speed limit, how would you enforce it?
Really easily here where the limit drops from 130kmh to 110kmh in the rain. The gendarmes just drive along at about 115kmh and nick anyone daft enough to overtake. This sometimes leads to Indy pace car type situations that make me smile.
The irony is that the anti-camera brigade are most likely Tory voters - inflicting austerity and swingeing cuts to the police which results in the increased use of cameras because there are no traffic police left in many regions.
The irony is most speed camera advocates are probably Tory voters that will believe anything a person in a position of power tells them.
*Other stupid sweeping statements available upon request.
The gendarmes just drive along at about 115kmh and nick anyone daft enough to overtake. This sometimes leads to Indy pace car type situations that make me smile.
I wish this would happen over here 😀
Mebbe someone else needs a refresher on speed limits. 🙂
Nope, well aware of the street light thing, thanks. But in practice I can count the number of times I've seen a 30mph dual carriageway with no other signage on the fingers of one foot.
(Cue everyone scrabbling to post an exception to prove me wrong; don't bother, I don't doubt there are somewhere but it'd be highly unusual.)
The vast majority of people seem to see the speed limit as a mandatory minimum requirement. It’s not,
Yes it is, unless situations dictate otherwise. If you drove everywhere at 20mph in clear conditions on your driving test, for no other reason than the vertically impressive equine argument "it's a limit not a target," you would fail. Guaranteed.
If it's chucking down or you're in a tractor or something then obviously this doesn't apply, it's not Mandatory mandatory, but if you can then you should. Funny how speed differential is such a big problem when we're talking about people going too fast on the motorway yet it goes out of the window when we're talking about people going too slowly.
If you had a variable, weather dependent speed limit, how would you enforce it?
France seems to manage OK?
Yes it is, unless situations dictate otherwise.
No, it really isn't. On this rare occasion you are wrong. Of course doing 20 in a 50 for no reason is a hazard. Doing 25 in a 30 is not.
The big issue is that Traffic Patrols basically don't exist any more so the roads are essentially unmonitored, especially in an area you know well so can avoid triggering the cameras for speed, red lights and box junctions. Put more patrols out so the risk of being caught increases for things like phone use, middle lane hogging, tailgating and no seat belt.
Static cameras encourage speeders to brake heavily for them then speed back up, this is dangerous. Average Speed cameras encourage calm behaviour on the whole so are my preferred option. The only place they don't work is where locals know they don't pass two between junctions so floor it for that part. Since they made the M4 round Newport and between Swansea and Port Talbot average cameras the standards of driving have gone up massively, mainly due to everyone going at the same speed and reducing the need or reward for changing lanes.
Speeding isn’t the biggest issue, it’s just poor standards of driving.
I'd advocate driving assessments every 5-10 years (note: not a retest) for the simple reason that people pass their test then drive how they think is correct, not what they were taught. It doesn't help that the lessons focus purely on passing the test and don't teach the higher skills needed to be truly safe: anticipation, defensive positioning and courteousy. This will never happen though.
Taking away that direct connection between engine and wheel speed makes a big difference, something that used to just be absolute reflex/background processing is now something that always takes a little thought. Oh you want to hold your speed going down this hill? Be a shame if I… upshifted for you.
I'm currently learning to drive a HGV and the height coupled with it being an automatic means judging your speed is really hard! 40 feels like 20 and 20 feels like walking pace. I did ask if they had a manual truck I could use but they only use auto's as lots of people struggle to control the things while changing gear. It's my one worry about electric cars, no mechanical feedback to indicate speed like I get in a manual car.
There's also the issue of modern cars insulating you so much from the outside that they almost feel too safe. Stick a person used to their leased safety cell into an older car like a Mk1 Golf, Beetle or a Mini and they'll suddenly realise how unsafe other road users are. I would say stick them on a bike or motorbike but that removes them too far from their reality so wouldn't have the same effect.
Yes it is, unless situations dictate otherwise.
No it’s not and the clue is in the name. It’s a limit not a fixed speed or minimum requirement. It’s the maximum allowable speed depending on conditions. Conditions are rarely perfect.
I passed my test and travelled below thirty in a thirty, never hit the NSL on a country lane section. Didn’t go past forty. Instructor told me it was a very pleasant drive.
France seems to manage OK?
We’re not in France. Perhaps they have a more proactive approach as evidenced by Edukators post.
Every time one of these threads crops up we have people trying to defend speeding. The fact of the matter is excessive speed makes any incident a hell of a lot worse and heightens the chance of somebody being killed. I speak from experience on this front. There simply isn’t a need to drive anywhere at excessive speed and I don’t care how person x is able to because they are so much better at driving. The faster you go, the longer it takes to react and stop. It’s that simple.
dangourbrain
Where the hell do you lot drive that this makes up the majority of people you share the road with?!?
Given the thread I counted today on my way home, 9miles, no close passes, not even a dick pass over the blind brow where I absolutely expect it, actually no ****tery to speak of at all.
In a normal commute (3.5mi of country nsl Road, 5.5 of urban including passing 2 primary and 2 secondary schools) if I get one close pass it stands out, I reckon I get one a week most weeks.
Last week I did normal commute Monday, Hexham on Tuesday, Bude on Wednesday, Hexham Thursday and Preston on Friday that’s about 1300mi of driving in the week. I remember one pillock avoiding a pheasant by passing it on the opposite side of the road round a blind bend on an nsl rather than using brakes or just hitting it.
I literally can't drive anywhere (like Wickes 2 miles away) without either adjusting my driving when I have priority or having an accident.
How many lanes did you use in 1300mi ?
Last motorway trip about 75 miles then another 65 on the A12 I would have lost count of the number of ****s sat in the middle lane. (In the hundreds) ...
This leaves 2 basic choices ... drive like a **** and join them or be boxed in every speed limited vehicle I come across whilst 50 or a 100 or so vehicles go past as I have to drop to 50mph.
or you really need to think about the common denominator in all these near misses you see.
My two incidents yesterday
- one was a car stopping a half bonnet over the stop line, requiring a swerve out to avoid a bump.
- one was one of the neighbours cutting at the turn into our road, completely wrong side around a tall hedge with no sight line. Thankfully it's a junction I always go slow having seen the corner cutting regularly.
I can add today's fool who didn't want to wait behind cyclist in new 20mph zone, around blind bend. So overtook our car and the<span style="font-size: 0.8rem;"> cyclist on the bend, to promptly try a left hook onto A9...</span>
I'm interested in the common denominator, because I'm not convinced it's me.
Given the thread I counted today on my way home, 9miles, no close passes, not even a dick pass over the blind brow where I absolutely expect it, actually no ****tery to speak of at all.
I agree most drivers are ok.
But there's a constant low level of numptiness, occasional idiocy, that I see most weeks.
We’re not in France. Perhaps they have a more proactive approach as evidenced by Edukators post.
Yes, it involves actual police not automated cameras
I don't quite get all the middle lane moaning. Not that I do sit in the middle lane, but can't you just use the fast lane to overtake? If they were sat in the fast lane doing 70 then fair enough, one can't get past without undertaking. But the first lane is usually full of trucks so can understand why some people would see the middle lane as 'lane 1'. What's the issue? Not being argumentative, genuinely interested. I've been driving a long time and can honestly say I've never encountered this problem.
Last motorway trip about 75 miles then another 65 on the A12 I would have lost count of the number of * sat in the middle lane. (In the hundreds) …
This leaves 2 basic choices … drive like a * and join them or be boxed in every speed limited vehicle I come across whilst 50 or a 100 or so vehicles go past as I have to drop to 50mph.
If there is that many 56mph vehicle using lane 1 then arguably staying in lane 2 is correct. Better than changing lanes every 20 or 30 seconds.
The other drivers obviously chose not to get boxed in at 56mph.
Your clear sight line argument, how about hedgerows, field openings, crossroads and stopping distances? Are you taking these in to account when driving at sixty?
If you've any of them you dont have a clear line of site
If they were sat in the fast lane doing 70 then fair enough, one can’t get past without undertaking
Why would you be getting past someone already at the legal limit?
In a perfect world, you would go at a speed where you can stop in tne distance you can see is clear, whatever your means of transport. Most of us probably don't
jambourgie
What’s the issue? Not being argumentative, genuinely interested. I’ve been driving a long time and can honestly say I’ve never encountered this problem.
Do you drive a van that takes "a minute or two" to go from 56 to 66 ??
It doesn't need to be many or even just trucks going up hills... but with a constant stream of drivers in the middle lane for miles you are blocked in unless you act like a **** and manoeuvre, signal, mirror and just force your way out. When its a long stream of cars its mostly just a load of people paying no attention ..
, but can’t you just use the fast lane to overtake?
Not if you can't get through the stream of cars but it only needs to be one doing "about 70mph" that for reasons best known to them* slows down when you do and speeds up when you do so I slow the van to say 60, floor it and pull out behind them then into lane 3 .. they then speed up .. I'm still flooring the van so might be up to 65 by then... get to about 70 mph then brake...
*I doubt most cases of this are deliberate ... mostly it's simply the driver seems to have no awareness and isn't paying attention. Then a BIG van pulls out and they suddenly react.
... but the real problem is
The other drivers obviously chose not to get boxed in at 56mph.
Hence are driving illegally... (see below)
then arguably staying in lane 2 is correct Better than changing lanes every 20 or 30 seconds.
Not disagreeing .. but 30 secs might be pushing it but I'm not talking 20-30seconds (or going past a junction with a lane merge)... I'm talking 20-30 minutes... often nothing visible in lane 1 for miles... I'll often follow them onto the motorway and they go straight for the middle lane.. regardless of the inner lane being empty... 5-10 miles later they are still in the middle lane.
The real issue (sorry said I was getting to that) is for every driver that just thinks "sod it, I'll not get caught and noone will let me back out if I drive legally" the issue just got 1 car/driver worse. Hence to scrounge Cougar's term its the "general level of ****tery" or just poor/lazy/inconsiderate driving.
Another pet peeve is drivers trying to intimidate you into a box junction with their horns or especially busses that come right up your arse. FFS .. it's a box junction... apart from being illegal without a clear exit it's there for a reason.
At the end of the day speed cameras shouldn’t even be advertised. Just there, hidden or in plain sight. I’ve never had a speeding ticket, crash, bump or a point. I’m not even a good driver. If people don’t like them, there is a reason for it. They don’t like not being able to drive how they think they should be able to.
the fast lane to overtake
The what?
There's the inside lane and either one or two overtaking lanes. There are no "fast" lanes on the UK road network (M6 toll excluded).
Yawn. Sorry Mr Partridge. The one furthest to the right where traffic is usually doing 80/90mph. So, not the first (left) lane. Nor the one to the right of that (middle). But the one to the right of the middle - the fastest (lane). As opposed to the left (first) lane - the slow lane.
🙂
Yawn. Sorry Mr Partridge. The one furthest to the right where traffic is usually doing 80/90mph. So, not the first (left) lane. Nor the one to the right of that (middle). But the one to the right of the middle – the fastest (lane). As opposed to the left (first) lane – the slow lane.
It might sound pedantic but really it isn't.
It's one of those offences that those doing it seem to blame everyone else for their driving because to them everyone else is acting erratically because they are in the eye of their own personal hurricane.
Amazing as it sounds I get the idea they think I just magically snook up on a car in a BIG van... based on reactions when they suddenly see me. Its like the passenger side mirror doesn't exist...
As above the main issue with this is it encourages more and more to do it not to mention the swerving and near accidents (and accidents) that happen (mostly behind them)
Wiltshire and Swindon has had no speed camera vans or static cameras for 10+years. Road traffic casualty stats didnt change, in fact continued to drop as they have across the country over those 10 years.
Not saying its right, because speeding causes alot of other issues and is anti social, increases pollution etc.
Just intresting that they dont seem to have made a huge difference in terms of casualty reduction. Of course it may be that the general expectation that cameras are about affects drivers attitudes when passing through.
The Daily Mail posted a headline claiming speed cameras increased fatalities but as usual grossly misled having chosen the few exceptions. When you look at the bigger picture they work.
https://fullfact.org/health/are-speed-cameras-causing-more-fatal-accidents/
I passed my test and travelled below thirty in a thirty, never hit the NSL on a country lane section. Didn’t go past forty. Instructor told me it was a very pleasant drive.
Were you driving to the conditions or no?
We’re not in France.
No we aren't. But you were asserting that it wasn't possible to enforce, so what's France with its situationally conditional speed limits got going on that's different from us?
Every time one of these threads crops up we have people trying to defend speeding.
...
There simply isn’t a need to drive anywhere at excessive speed.
Every time one of these threads crops up we have people trying (and often failing) to define speeding.
"Speeding" is a nonsense abstract concept. Are you talking about driving faster than the posted speed limit; are you talking about driving faster than conditions dictate; or are you talking about driving faster than some other undefined arbitrary factor that you've pulled out of your arse? All of these things are very different, what do you consider to be "excessive speed"?
If you're going to challenge "speeding" then you may well have a valid point, but you need to explain what you're actually challenging.
The faster you go, the longer it takes to react and stop. It’s that simple.
Of course it is, yes. But then what? Shall we drop the motorway limit to 4mph? Roll out the guys with red flags to walk in front of cars?
I don’t quite get all the middle lane moaning. Not that I do sit in the middle lane, but can’t you just use the fast lane to overtake?
There's no such thing as a 'fast lane' and that's part of the problem. All motorway lanes operate at the same speed. If you're not in the leftmost lane and not overtaking anything then generally you're in the wrong one.
In a perfect world, you would go at a speed where you can stop in tne distance you can see is clear, whatever your means of transport. Most of us probably don’t
Speak for yourself, that's one of my core beliefs. You should be able to stop in the distance you can see, always. If you can't then you're going too fast.
No we aren’t. But you were asserting that it wasn’t possible to enforce, so what’s France with its situationally conditional speed limits got going on that’s different from us?
No, I simply asked how it would be enforced. Edukator gave a sensible response. I can’t see the same happening here due to the fact there are barely enough police officers to do the basics.
Of course it is, yes. But then what? Shall we drop the motorway limit to 4mph? Roll out the guys with red flags to walk in front of cars?
Don’t break the speed limit because you (not you in particular) think it is silly or you can drive quicker than the posted limit because of your driving skills.
Of course it is, yes. But then what? Shall we drop the motorway limit to 4mph? Roll out the guys with red flags to walk in front of cars?
Of course not. Just don’t break the posted limit and drive under it to varying degrees based on the conditions. Light rain, slow down a bit. Sun really bright and shining in the car, slow down. Thick fog, slow down more etc.
Hi
Are you talking about driving faster than the posted speed limit; are you talking about driving faster than conditions dictate; or are you talking about driving faster than some other undefined arbitrary factor that you’ve pulled out of your arse? All of these things are very different, what do you consider to be “excessive speed”?
Faster than the speed limit and travelling at the speed limit when conditions dictate otherwise. There are limits for a reason despite the fact that people keep insisting otherwise. Travelling at 35 in a 30 does make a difference, especially if you’re getting hit by the vehicle doing so
We elected Tim Nice but Dim
Speak for yourself, that’s one of my core beliefs. You should be able to stop in the distance you can see, always. If you can’t then you’re going too fast.
This is called the ‘vanishing point’, is taught in advanced driving and should be a much more talked about thing in normal driving lessons / Highway Code etc
“Driving vanishing point” on YouTube will bring up some interesting videos I’m sure
It should be grossly criminal to drive quicker than you can stop beyond your vanishing point
You should be able to stop in the distance you can see, always. If you can’t then you’re going too fast.
In some situations you should be able to stop in less than half the distance you can see, going around a blind bend on a single track road for example. And it would be wise to go even slower because you can't be sure the driver comming the other way wil be as cautious.
The limits here are based on survivability. Speeding means going faster than these limits and having a scooby will significantly increase the risk of serious injury or death.
30kmh - high survivability of pedestrians
50kmh - used to be considered as acceptable survivabilty for pedestrains but see line above.
70/80 - acceptable survivability for occupants if car leaves road and hits solid object or another vehicle head on
90 - roads wide enough to allow two lanes in one direction and therefore overtaking with a low risk of head on colision and wide run offs.
110 - dual carriage ways with separation - little risk of head on, a good chance the vehicle will remain on the carriage way and lose energy slowly
130 - sufficeint protection to prevent cross-over accidents and keep cars within the rails at higher speeds
That's how it was explained to me, seems reasonable.
I can’t see the same happening here due to the fact there are barely enough police officers to do the basics.
Indeed. Which is exactly what I was arguing for at the start of this conversation.
There are limits for a reason despite the fact that people keep insisting otherwise.
Yep. It's because Jaguar started using the M6 as a test track. Then later we put numbers on poles everywhere else based on the braking distance of a Ford Anglia.
To be clear: I don't have a problem with speed limits, as I've said earlier people can't be trusted. I have a problem with the absence of thought and consideration behind speed and speed limits both in drivers and enforcement.