[Closed] So my bro got caught speeding

crankrider - Member
bikebouy - Member
You have no idea how long I've owned that car, you have no idea where I drive or for how long, most importantly you have no idea how I drive except I drive within the speed limits.
Care to share?

Not with you... it absolutely none of your business... You should concentrate on yourself.

theotherjonv - Member

as soon as you admit that you allow someone else on the road who is driving perfectly reasonably and within the law to 'annoy' you, what does that say about your tolerance? Because they are hesitant / terrified - should they not be allowed out? Or just at specific times / on specific roads?

Exactly - if a driver is hesitant to the extreme (dangerous) or terrified (very dangerous) of course they shouldnt be allowed on the road, is that even open for debate? We have laws to prevent speeding, dont we, so that deals with the idiots on that side of things, how about dealing with the dangerously incompetent?

bikebouy - Member

crankrider - Member
bikebouy - Member
You have no idea how long I've owned that car, you have no idea where I drive or for how long, most importantly you have no idea how I drive except I drive within the speed limits.
Care to share?

Not with you... it absolutely none of your business... You should concentrate on yourself.

I am not 'concentrating' any real effort on you at all, you are implying everybody is 'angry' if they have an opinion though you sound more upset than anybody else.

I imagine you wont share this completely innocuous information as it serves to confirm your stereotype.

Euro, did you actually really read my post? Lol

The divide here seems to be between those who appreciate the need for rules for society to function, and those think they should be able to do whatever they damn well please because they know best.

Am I right?

We have laws to prevent speeding, dont we, so that deals with the idiots on that side of things, how about dealing with the dangerously incompetent?

I agree completely, but you didn't say dangerously incompetent, you said 'overly hesitant' and '40 in a 60' neither of which are particularly dangerous as long as the driving gods don't get annoyed with them and try to rush past in an inappropriate manner. Which to be fair, you didn't say you did, you said you'd wait. But my point was that the irritation at people driving 'competently but not like a deity' annoys some people to the extent that they then do bad things like intimidate or overtake inappropriately.

I'm never going to argue that the 'dangerously incompetent' should be off the roads; I'd be all for mandatory retests at say 5 or 10 years and then becoming more frequent as you get older or are shown / found to be starting to get worse.

eg: test at say 18 (by the time you've learnt); retest at 25, 35, 45, 55, 60, 65 and then more frequent depending on how you are driving compared to past tests. But start getting points for bad driving, then you need to retest every year until points are cleared, to show you have improved.

The divide here seems to be between those who appreciate the need for rules for society to function, and those think they should be able to do whatever they damn well please because they know best.

Am I right

[img] [/img]

The divide here seems to be between those who appreciate the need for rules for society to function, and those think they should be able to do whatever they damn well please because they know best.
Am I right

Not quite. But nice try.

I think it's more between those who appreciate the need for rules for society to function and will stick rigidly to any rule or law that their masters see fit to impose. And those who appreciate the need for rules for society to function but think it's not worth worrying about those who occasionally break the rules if it's of no consequence to anyone else and there's no one around to witness it.

Bikebouy, with all respect: you're going to give yourself an aneurysm stressing about people breaking rules. All the people in the world right now breaking laws by downloading/stealing media, lighting up a fat one etc... just gotta accept it happens.

Just backing up myself, seems just because I have a very rigid opinion of speeding motorists I attract angry divisive characters who defend their "right" to speed.

What about those who just want to drive at the limit if / when its safe too..... 😈

mindmap3 - Member

Just backing up myself, seems just because I have a very rigid opinion of speeding motorists I attract angry divisive characters who defend their "right" to speed.

What about those who just want to drive at the limit if / when its safe too....

Angry maniac.

All the people in the world right now breaking laws by downloading/stealing media

Any chance of some statistics to show how many more people that kills or seriously injures compared going through a pay wall, jambourgie.

Depends whether you count sperm death.

Any chance of some statistics to show how many more people that kills or seriously injures compared going through a pay wall, jambourgie.

Nope.

Fair point. Though I imagine there's quite a few who've thrapped themselves to death on all that grot...

I think it's more between those who appreciate the need for rules for society to function and will stick rigidly to any rule or law that their masters see fit to impose. And those who appreciate the need for rules for society to function but think it's not worth worrying about those who [b]occasionally break the rules if it's of no consequence to anyone else[/b] and there's no one around to witness it.

Heres the thing. People have to make the decision as to whether or not it's of no consequence. And they frequently make the wrong decision, and people die as a consequence.

Deciding there's no consequence to driving a particular speed or checking a text IS deciding that you know best.

You have no idea how long I've owned that car, you have no idea where I drive or for how long, most importantly you have no idea how I drive except I drive within the speed limits.

Uuumm , that is not enrirely true sir.

I use the M27/M3/A1/A3/A2 a lot, and obviously suburban locations.

Checking a text is stupid though Molgrips cos you're taking your eyes off the road. We're talking about exceeding the speed limit on an empty motorway aren't we?

And the operator of the car does know best surely?

And the operator of the car does know best surely?

Judging from some of the driving I see and the fact that people are killed or injured on a regular basis then that would have to be a big, fat no.

We're talking about exceeding the speed limit on an empty motorway aren't we?

I think it changed to speeding in general about seven pages back

Downloaded a film last night and have broken lots of laws in my time. Never broke speed limits though because I’ve suffered through the consequences of just travelling a bit over the limit.

We're talking about exceeding the speed limit on an empty motorway aren't we?

I think it changed to speeding in general about seven pages back

I honestly think that if the government put out a new law that you could only have sex missionary style from now on, there would be people on here up in arms about someone admitting to doing it doggy style.

I don’t think so to be honest. I just think driving within the limits is what grown ups should do regardless of whether or not the road in question is bereft of traffic. I can see why teenagers or folk in their twenties do it. When you get older it just seems a tad sad and immature. Shit can go sideways quite quickly and some poor bugger is scraping bits of you up and knocking on your wife’s door to break the sad news. In my opinion of course.

funkmasterp - Member

Downloaded a film last night and have broken lots of laws in my time. Never broke speed limits though because I’ve suffered through the consequences of just travelling a bit over the limit.

And you are completely sure that whatever happened was due to you travelling at slightly above the speed limit rather than other factors?

As I said before, if a road is re-classified to a lower speed limit, does that mean you are now some kind of speeding maniac? Does it mean that when you previously travelled down there that it was unsafe to do so?

Do you get annoyed if for example a disabled person, or a mother with a pushchair is trying to get through a door in front of you and delays you for a short period? Or do you make allowance for them?

I don't get annoyed by people who are disabled, I do get annoyed by people who are simply incompetent at life. Actually, "annoyed" is the wrong word, frustrated maybe.

Eg, someone disabled, of course not. Someone who's chosen to wait until they're standing in a doorway blocking it off in both directions to decide that it's time to button up the coats of their soluble children because they're too shit-witted to realise that beyond the door is "outside" is another matter. It'd be simple enough for them to take two steps back and get out of the way whilst they sort themselves out but they're too self-absorbed for the notion to even enter their head.

I've no problem with people dithering, so long as they dither in a manner that doesn't inconvenience the rest of the world. See also, roads. I've followed people doing 40mph in a 60, only to have them speed up / intentionally move out when I've gone to overtake. What's that all about?

And the operator of the car does know best surely?

Serious? All the shit driving we complain about all day long, and you think the drivers know best?

Anyway. Every time we do this, you all overlook something I think is very important which is consistency. If everyone's doing 50-60 on the open road, it's far easier to judge moving traffic because you know what to expect. If you look, see plenty of space, then start to move and suddenly your empty road has been closed up by some **** who's just appeared doing 90, it's just making the situation far more difficult and potentially dangerous.

Driving fast affects other people, even if you don't actually hit them. Ok, you might be talking about an empty road, but you might think it's empty when it's not. As for the hypothetical empty motorway in the middle of the night well, whatever. But that's habit forming - you'll start looking for excuses to speed - just as people want to shoot through a give-way without stopping, because they can if nothing's coming, but then one day there is. Like the guy who mowed down the cyclist in Bez's article the other day because he wanted to go through the crossroads without stopping and thought he could see.

Just chill out. Accept that it's going to take some time to get where you are going. Make the roads better for everyone. And save fuel whilst you are at it. It's not like there's an unlimited supply.

And you are completely sure that whatever happened was due to you travelling at slightly above the speed limit rather than other factors?

My brother was killed by somebody making progress, 34 in a 30. If he had been travelling at 30 or below the angle that my brothers head hit the car would’ve been different. According to an expert witness the speed difference would have meant he’d still be alive today. So yeah, pretty sure on that one

if a road is re-classified to a lower speed limit, does that mean you are now some kind of speeding maniac? Does it mean that when you previously travelled down there that it was unsafe to do so?

Quite possibly yes. But the acceptable speed has just changed, so deal with it. Imagine if everyone was doing the same speed, how much easier woudl traffic flow?

funkmasterp - Member

And you are completely sure that whatever happened was due to you travelling at slightly above the speed limit rather than other factors?

My brother was killed by somebody making progress, 34 in a 30. If he had been travelling at 30 or below the angle that my brothers head hit the car would’ve been different. According to an expert witness the speed difference would have meant he’d still be alive today. So yeah, pretty sure on that one

Well shit, I am genuinely sorry to hear that - It certainly explains your opinion regarding speeding as there is genuine reason behind it.

I wont pass any comment on the accident that killed your brother as that would be completely unfair to do so, 30mph zones are there for a reason and I think completely exempt from the discussion here which started about motorway driving - Only somebody that is deranged would argue otherwise and I will be happy to see more 20mph zones around schools.

bikebouy
Just backing up myself, seems just because I have a very rigid opinion of speeding motorists

ok, let me ask a question:

Do you stick rigidly to the speed limits in order to maximise the safety with which you drive?

I hit 165mph on a speedway 😛 awesome after 2 runs.

Full face helmet etc.

I drive the same car at 30/31mph on the dot in built up areas.

molgrips - Member

if a road is re-classified to a lower speed limit, does that mean you are now some kind of speeding maniac? Does it mean that when you previously travelled down there that it was unsafe to do so?

Quite possibly yes. But the acceptable speed has just changed, so deal with it. Imagine if everyone was doing the same speed, how much easier woudl traffic flow?

Im not even sure how to respond to that jibberish, yea but no but yea?

funkmasterp
My brother was killed by somebody making progress, 34 in a 30.

No he wasn't. He was killed by someone who failed to drive at an appropriate speed at that moment in time and space. He could have been doing 100, and yet with robust observation, spotted the oncomming high probability of an incident, and hence being doing just 15mph when he hit your Brother, hence not killing him. But not only was he (i'm assuming it was a he) speeding, he was also failing to observe and drive at an appropriate speed at that precise moment in time.

The more we fixate on the (arbitrary) speed limits, the more we let drivers get away with this sort of accident. ie had he not been speeding, say doing 30mph not 34 and still killed your brother (which is very likely) then he would have "got off scott free" in all likely hood as it would have just been an "accident".

(I don't know the details of the exact case, but i'd be interested to understand how they knew (with sufficient certainty) the velocity at which the impact occurred. (it would take an electronic log (ie airbag controller download etc) to be able to prove the difference between 34 and 30)

Well shit, I am genuinely sorry to hear that - It certainly explains your opinion regarding speeding as there is genuine reason behind it.

I wont pass any comment on the accident that killed your brother as that would be completely unfair to do so

Happy to discuss it. It happened about twelve years ago. Makes you realise why speed limits are in place and how they can make a difference. His kids never really got over it. I miss him and I’ve said before that I should probably stay away from these threads. Bias and all that.

Thing is the driver could have been doing anything else. Texting, shaving ot whatever. Four miles an hour made a huge difference. Cars, especially modern ones, breed complacency. Speed doesn’t feel the same when you’re in what basically equates to a mobile living room

it's far easier to judge moving traffic because you know what to expect. If you look, see plenty of space, then start to move and suddenly your empty road has been closed up by some **** who's just appeared doing 90,

I know what to expect, that at any given moment there's an outside chance that someone might "just appear" (whatever that means) doing 90 and plan accordingly.

it's just making the situation far more difficult and potentially dangerous.

Agreed.

When you get older it just seems a tad sad and immature. Shit can go sideways quite quickly and some poor bugger is scraping bits of you up and knocking on your wife’s door to break the sad news

This.

Out of interest, I wander how old folks are on this tbread.

I’m 46, over 10 yrs no claims, drive a performance car (turbo charged beetle), I’ve done a speed awareness course.

I drive a hell of a lot slower than I did 30 yrs ago, I like to think I’m patient & considerate. I don’t speed, I’m sorry to say I’ve seen the consequences of speeding up close & personal.

My hunch is the older you get & the more experience you garner the less impatient & more sympathetic you become as a driver.

I also hold a PCV & HGV licence plus I’ve done a fair bit of driver training both in & outside of the uniformed services. In civvie street it was mostly out of the desire to drive fast because you really can’t do it safely on the road. Also to improve my own abilities as a driver.

I, in no way, consider myself a driving god.

In fact, the more training I’ve had the more I’ve realised how vast the gulf is between your average driver & those who are actually good drivers. By good, I mean professional i.e. plod class 1 & pro racing drivers. Both of who’ve I’ve had the privilege of being impressed by.

I expect a flaming for my honesty, but I couldn’t care less TBH.

maxtorque - Member
funkmasterp
My brother was killed by somebody making progress, 34 in a 30.

No he wasn't. He was killed by someone who failed to drive at an appropriate speed at that moment in time and space. He could have been doing 100, and yet with robust observation,

Seriously? If I stw funkmasterp I would be pretty angry at that assertion.

If someone is willing to break legally enforced speed limits designed to limit fatalities I don't consider them trust worthy to use "robust observation"!

Would you let a burglar renovate your house??

Ffs!

The more we fixate on the (arbitrary) speed limits, the more we let drivers get away with this sort of accident. ie had he not been speeding, say doing 30mph not 34 and still killed your brother (which is very likely) then he would have "got off scott free" in all likely hood as it would have just been an "accident".

(I don't know the details of the exact case, but i'd be interested to understand how they knew (with sufficient certainty) the velocity at which the impact occurred. (it would take an electronic log (ie airbag controller download etc) to be able to prove the difference between 34 and 30)

The case went on for a long time and the police expert seemed pretty sure. I don’t recall lots of detail on account of being a bit upset. Nice to know you’re sure the speed wasn’t an issue though. It brings me great comfort.

I’m 46, over 10 yrs no claims, drive a performance car (turbo charged beetle), I’ve done a speed awareness course.

I'm 46 as of last weekend, zero no claims thanks to someone taking the side of my car off overnight, drive a diesel Skoda and have done a speed awareness course.

I too drive a lot more slowly than I did when I was 18. I think a big part of that is just growing up. I still drive to make progress, but in the IAM sense rather than the STW hand-wringing sense. It's possible to drive quickly and efficiently without breaking speed limits.

I still drive to make progress, but in the IAM sense

What does this mean? Making progress is meant to be a euphemism for going too fast. Simply driving towards your destination is making progress, isn't it?

What do you think we are doing? Trundling around like old people?

Not breaking the speed limit is key for predictability by other road users, and as a general indication of risks that you may not be able to see or know about.

Driving fast is an indulgence, and it's potentially more dangerous. That's all there is to it.

What does this mean? Making progress is meant to be a euphemism for going too fast.

Only on STW. Someone commented on this a few pages back.

What do you think we are doing? Trundling around like old people?

Sure. I've read your posts on previous driving threads. (-:

Not breaking the speed limit is key for predictability by other road users, and as a general indication of risks that you may not be able to see or know about.

It's a factor sure. It's far from the only one. Driving at a given speed because it's printed on a sign and believing you're therefore safe is wooly thinking.

Driving fast is an indulgence, and it's potentially more dangerous. That's all there is to it.

Whilst this may well be true, it has nothing to do with speed limits.

Driving at a given speed because it's printed on a sign and believing you're therefore safe is wooly thinking.

I've not seen any evidence that anyone thinks they are safe purely because they are doing the speed limit. If they did, then it would be stupidity, not just woolly thinking.

However that does not mean that it's ok to speed, does it? Being a safe driver includes many things, including conservative speed. Since the speed limits are conservative and clearly visible to everyone then sticking to them is safer but also encourages predictable behaviour for everyone.

Poopscoop

Seriously? If I stw funkmasterp I would be pretty angry at that assertion.

I think you are missing my point:

Lets consider the two following, slightly different scenario's

1) a driver is speeding at 34mph in a 30, hits a pedestrian and kills them

2) a driver is not speeding (doing 30.0000000 mph in a 30) hits a pedestrian and kills them

in case 1) our society seems to say "oh well, then" and the driver gets let off, it was just an "accident" after all

in case 2), our society gets our pitch forks out, and shouts "crazy speeding lunatic, he should be locked up for life"

In both cases the end effect was the same, someone (unnecessarily in both cases imo) lost there life because the driver of the car failed to drive and act appropriately. However in case 1) because he happened to be below some completely arbitrary speed, they get let off.

That^^ is my point. We should stop focusing on "speed" as the cause of "accidents" and start focusing on drivers as the cause of "accidents"!!!

I think you are missing my point:

..and I think you need to step away from the discussion.

Worst.
Example.
In .
The.
History.
Of.
STW.

I think he's got his cases mixed up.

In any event. Speed in FMP's tragic story almost certainly isn't the [i]cause[/i] of the accident. However it almost certainly is the cause of the outcome, or at the very least contributary.

Maxtorque has missed the point that the 30 limit was originally chosen because it was argued pedestrians had a good chance of surving being hit by a car at 30. In France the limit in town used to be 60kmh and it was lowered to 50kmh to improve survival rates. In recent years its been suggested the limit should be lowered to further imcrease chances of surviving being hit.

I drove to the dance class tonight rather than walk as it was raining heavily, I just once got to 50kmh indicated (a real 47) and that briefly. Madame drove on the return, I've just asked and she reckons she reached 38 kmh max. Now was I driving too fast, was she driving too slow or were were both just driving at the speed we felt appropriate, and how many of you on this thread would have been cursing either of us for holding you up?

Hard to comment without knowing the conditions first-hand TBH.

That^^ is my point. We should stop focusing on "speed" as the cause of "accidents" and start focusing on drivers as the cause of "accidents"!!!

Yeah maybe a campaign about drink driving, or using your phone when driving.. oh wait.. we did.

Society does not focus solely on speed and ignore issues. You are imagining it. Maybe looking for excuses perhaps?

maxtorque

I think you are missing my point:

No,I think you are missing mine and many others point.

start focusing on drivers as the cause of "accidents"!!!

[b]
Yes, and part of that equation are drivers that speed.[/b]

You seriously can't see that I am focusing on drivers by saying that??

I drive, on average, roughly three hundred miles a day, largely on motorways and single/dual-carriageway roads like the A30/A303/A38, and some rural and urban roads, and the biggest issue I have is with articulated trucks and other large commercial vehicles which have the irritating, and arguably dangerous habit of leaving it until myself and other drivers are close behind, passing in the middle lane, before indicating and moving out at exactly the same time, forcing me to either brake or have to check the outside lane and also pull out at the same time, possibly into the path of a vehicle passing at greater speed. This habit is dangerous, and should be clamped down on, along with failing to indicate at all, both of which seem to be connected to failing to check for traffic approaching from the rear, although it could just be down to bullying through having a bigger vehicle which nobody is going to argue with.
Now, just to clarify my usual daily driving, I habitually drive at an indicated 80mph, that’s approximately 75mph, for the habitually outraged among the STW membership, that’s a speed that’s comfortable to drive at, keeps me ahead of lots of slower traffic, while lots of faster traffic overtakes me and disappears into the distance. It’s a speed I’ve followed police cars at, and usually they’ve pulled away from me, so it appears that those who actually do the job of enforcing traffic laws [i]are perfectly comfortable with other drivers travelling at![/i]
I also use all three lanes as appropriate, and, wherever possible, I pull over to allow those moving faster to pass me with the minimum amount of slowing up, which also involves moving out a lane at on-ramps to allow vehicles joining the carriageway to do so at a speed appropriate to what other traffic is moving at.
This system seems to keep traffic flowing pretty well, generally speaking, and I’ll carry on driving like I do [b]when conditions permit[/b], with emphasis on those three words.

[quote=mrlebowski ]Out of interest, I wander how old folks are on this tbread.

47, I think the last time I lost any NCB I was 23 when my car was stolen (had a couple of claims due to collisions when I was in my early 30s, though had protected NCB by then). Drive a diesel Mondeo and have never owned a performance car.

Have never been on a speed awareness course, but have been nabbed for speeding twice and taken the points - the last was 6 or 7 years ago and actually a good example of one of the points being made on this thread, was done for 57 in a 50 limit on a road which used to have a 70 limit and at a point on the road where there were no hazards and didn't justify the lower limit (the limit is justified further down the road where there are junctions and I slowed down just after I got caught because I always do slow down there, but they did a blanket lowering), but I chose to speed and got caught. I've already admitted I sometimes speed on the motorways - but nowadays by that I mean doing 80, which doesn't seem to count to some people and it's fairly rare. I also sometimes do 60 or 65 on the motorways and never break 30 limits.

Like others I'm a much calmer and slower driver than when I was younger - I hope a better one too.

So we are ok about poor, drivers killing other people as long as they aren't speeding?

The longer we focus [b]heavily[/b] on just pure speed, the longer we keep killing people. Pretty simple really.

A poor driver makes a poor decision, that results in them colliding with another person or object. The speed they are travelling is (in the vast majority of cases) irrelevant. It's the fact they were travelling at an inappropriate speed that matters. To fix that, we need proper driver training, proper driver assessment, proper driver attitudes and putting driving back as a "Privilege" not a given "Right".
The only way to fix the issue with [b]just [/b] speed is to make the speed limit 0 mph.

Think about why the vast majority of normal, everyday drivers, speed. It's not because they are boy racers, or speed freaks, it's pure and simple because they have not got the necessary skills to correctly objectify the process of driving, and in particular lack hazard perception and an awareness of pro-active driving techniques.
Hence they fail to select an appropriate speed at a critical moment. Luckily, on average, accidents, or situations that conspire to risk a collision are actually very rare. However, an effect called "regression to the norm" then kicks in. i.e.

"i drove at 35mph through that village every day this week and didn't crash, so it must be ok to do the same speed today right"?

And one day, their lack of hazard awareness means they don't notice the kid waiting in front of the school bus (his feet are clearly visible underneath that bus before he stepped out into the road to those drivers that know where to look) who steps out, and bang, 1 more child dead or seriously injured and another raft of "we have to stop people speeding" calls in the press and the following inevitable knee jerk reaction to reduce the limits (which, once again, due to regression to the norm, are then pretty much immediately ignored every single day by the lucky 99.9999999% of drivers who haven't run over and killed a child this week/month/year)

Lets face it, lots of drivers get caught by speed camera vans. Those large, extremely obvious white vans covered in luminous reflectors, parked some distance behind a large obvious sign that sits there warning you there's a camera van ahead (and the vans schedules / positions are published on the local council website) and yet people still drive past exceeding the limit and get fined / points etc. I'm sorry, speed isn't the issue, it's failure to observe that's the issue. If you can't spot a Bl**dy obvious large white van and slowing down, what chance have you got of spotting little Tommy, hiding behind that bus, on his phone, and not paying attention to the road before he crosses and slowing down?

I also ask how many of the righteous i-never-speed-ers on here have gone out and got any extra driver training above and beyond the legally required minimum certification?? It's been proved many times, that learning the art of advanced / defensive driving reduces your risk of being involved in an accident many times. It the cheapest "risk reduction" possible and yet just about no one does it. How many of your have wives, sons, daughters, partners who "speed". I bet you in the vast majority of cases i could get video evidence of a member of your family speeding every time they drive a car.

I spent 5 years teaching advanced and performance driving, including to Warwickshire Police drivers, and without fail, by teaching someone the skills necessary to be able to assess on their own the appropriate speed at all times you make them far, far safer. And yes, in some situations they do drive faster than they may have done before, and, horror or horror, they may even exceed the numbers on the arbitrary little metal signs!

Interesting case given the discussion about training...

116mph, 6 points.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-north-east-wales-42643329

Sorry, gonna have to multiquote here to deal with that long spiel:

[quote=maxtorque ]So we are ok about poor, drivers killing other people as long as they aren't speeding?

No.

The longer we focus heavily on just pure speed, the longer we keep killing people.

Nobody is focusing purely on speed - it's just one factor, but clearly it is a significant one in a large number of deaths, enough to make it an issue which is well worth addressing.

To fix that, we need proper driver training, proper driver assessment, proper driver attitudes and putting driving back as a "Privilege" not a given "Right".

Does that come with a free unicorn?

The only way to fix the issue with just speed is to make the speed limit 0 mph.

That's kind of strawmanny - nobody is suggesting that getting people to abide by speed limits will prevent all deaths.

Lets face it, lots of drivers get caught by speed camera vans. Those large, extremely obvious white vans covered in luminous reflectors, parked some distance behind a large obvious sign that sits there warning you there's a camera van ahead (and the vans schedules / positions are published on the local council website) and yet people still drive past exceeding the limit and get fined / points etc. I'm sorry, speed isn't the issue, it's failure to observe that's the issue. If you can't spot a Bl**dy obvious large white van and slowing down, what chance have you got of spotting little Tommy, hiding behind that bus, on his phone, and not paying attention to the road before he crosses and slowing down?

Let me stop you there. I've been caught by a speed camera van. Twice. In both cases I observed the speed camera van as soon as it came into sight (over the brow of a hill, and around a corner). In both cases the camera van had already clocked me, based on the speed recorded on the notice. Getting done by a camera van provides no proof of lack of observation (sure there were signs, there are always signs and I've driven both those roads past the signs loads of times without there being a van there, no failure of observation there either).

Sure there are other factors of driver behaviour which need addressing, and I agree with you that we should do much more about that. But that doesn't mean there's no point in getting people to stick to speed limits - mostly they are useful.

molgrips - Member

The divide here seems to be between those who appreciate the need for rules for society to function, and those think they should be able to do whatever they damn well please because they know best.

Am I right?

Is your life better since you stopped hating poofs? 😉

Edukator - Reformed Troll

Maxtorque has missed the point that the 30 limit was originally chosen because it was argued pedestrians had a good chance of surviving being hit by a car at 30

Cite if you would.

Rod King, founder of the 20's Plenty for Us campaign

"It was pulled out of a hat"

molgrips - Member

Since the speed limits are conservative and clearly visible to everyone then sticking to them is safer but also encourages predictable behaviour for everyone.

Every time molgrips!

Driving to expectation is dangerous.
I'd also advocate lower limits if you're going to continue making driving decisions based on "what's probably going to happen".

aracer - Member

Nobody is focusing purely on speed

He didn't say purely.
He said heavily and is entirely correct.
There is a term for inventing an argument then arguing against it. 💡

speed - it's just one factor, but clearly it is a significant one

Primary in 4%.
This is all old ground.

those who actually do the job of enforcing traffic laws are perfectly comfortable with other drivers travelling at!

Probably not, but if they stopped everyone going at a speed over the limit to hand out tickets they'd run out of paper in a day, and then wouldn't be driving around looking for genuinely bad drivers instead.

I suspect it's a grudging acceptance that a few mph on a motorway is the lesser of the evils they are there to police, not that they are 'perfectly comfortable' with people speeding. Try it past a school at opening time and see if they are the same?

In both cases the end effect was the same, someone (unnecessarily in both cases imo) lost there life because the driver of the car failed to drive and act appropriately. However in case 1) because he happened to be below some completely arbitrary speed, they get let off.

That^^ is my point. We should stop focusing on "speed" as the cause of "accidents" and start focusing on drivers as the cause of "accidents"!!!

I completely understand what you are saying here and I agree with the theory. If the driver is at fault in both of your scenarios then throw the book at them. All elements should be focused on, speed is just one of the easier ones to police. I believe stronger action is the way forward. At present there is very little in the way of punishment for shit driving. Go on a course, have some points or a small fine.

The guy that killed my brother received a fine and a ban for a short period. He also showed very little remorse. That’s where our society is at with drivers rights. Take away a Father and receive a slap on the wrist. It’s a sad situation all around.

worth looking at this data to get a sense of where the problem areas are

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/reported-road-casualties-great-britain-annual-report-2016

15% fatalities down to exceeding speed limit. Almost same for poor turn or manoeuvre and pretty much double (27%) for failed to look properly and loss of control (30%)

Rich_s - Member
Interesting case given the discussion about training...

116mph, 6 points.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-north-east-wales-42643329

I picked that this morn too. Interesting point that, your job absolutely depends on having a licence, you have 6 points but still do 116mph on your way to a work related appointment? He got off due to exceptional hardship but perhaps it should be 'exceptionally poor judgement'?

The whole exceptional hardship area is a bit dubious IME, I've used it myself - twice though I've now learned my lesson and drive like a Grandad.

Driving to expectation is dangerous.

I don't think you quite understand what I mean.

I'm not advocating you should rely on people doing what you expect them to do. I'm saying that doing that which is expected is less likely to cause a surprise than doing that which is unexpected - by definition. And therefore be safer and less stressful.

It's been proved many times, that learning the art of advanced / defensive driving reduces your risk of being involved in an accident many times.

What courses do you suggest?

And yes, in some situations they do drive faster than they may have done before, and, horror or horror, they may even exceed the numbers on the arbitrary little metal signs!

So you're saying it's ok to speed if you think you're good enough? But everyone thinks they're good enough - which is backed up by your own evidence that people don't do the courses.

I think I'm reasonably safe - on the safe side of average - but not because I don't habitually speed. Mostly because I've done a lot of urban cycling.

molgrips
What courses do you suggest?

Firstly, get assessed. There are plenty of local advanced driving organisations that offer a basic, cheap, initial assessment. Advanced driving has a certain stigma of wheel shuffling by-the-book rigidity, but the simple fact is, if you get an assessment by a suitably qualified advanced driver, then they can very quickly pick up where you are lacking and then you know where you need to concentrate your improvements.

Even if you don't go on to do the full advanced courses, just a morning driving with an examiner is likely, for most typical drivers (ime) provide a large positive step in the learning curve, and a large reduction in their driving risks.

If you want the best, and here's a shameless plug for a friend of mine, go see Reg:
[url= http://www.reglocal.com/ ]Reg Local - Enjoy Driving and Stay Safe[/url]

His book:

[url= http://www.amazon.co.uk/How-Not-Crash-Reg-Local/dp/1530991404 ]How not to Crash[/url]

Is also well recommended to introduce the basics of advanced driving to a non expert audience. If you have kids starting to drive, seriously BUY THIS BOOK and give it to them NOW!!!

For people who don't want to spend any money, then get over to You-tube and check outs Reg's videos on his channel. You don't have to agree with everything he (or any other advanced driver for that matter) says, but the advice is sound, based on years of experience and [b] will [/b] make you as safer driver at what ever speed you drive at!

For example:

molgrips
So you're saying it's ok to speed if you think you're good enough? But everyone thinks they're good enough - which is backed up by your own evidence that people don't do the courses.

No, you have to be proven good enough. Holding a std licence and thinking your gods gift to wheelmen is not proof! The Advanced driving system is deliberately designed to build up and PROVE a drivers skill level over a period of time. You can't go out and get an advanced qualification this morning, no matter how good you are. Experience + Proven Skill = Safe Driving (at whatever speed, 20 or 200mph)

I'm saying this once you have been taught the skills to accurately and safely assess the driving environment, you can use your extra skills to drive faster, and STILL be safer than the average motorist. IME, advanced drivers will exceed the speed limit when safe to do so (for example, dry, lightly traffic'd motorway, in a modern car, they probably won't be doing 70, they may even (shock horror) be doing over 100 (very occasionally) but critically, they won't be causing any other motorist or road user to have to adjust their driving to do that! (big difference to the average rep doing 90 right up your ass, or cutting into the small gap in front of you etc).

You see the occasional news item about "advanced driver caught at 120mph" of course, but most of the time, most advanced drivers get around, faster, smoother and SAFER than everyone else! (and this is reflected in the drop in insurance premiums that comes with advanced qualifications)

I think I'm reasonably safe - on the safe side of average - but not because I don't habitually speed. Mostly because I've done a lot of urban cycling.

Ditto. I’ve cycled my entire life and tend to think from a cyclists point of view even when driving. The attitude to driving on here does sometimes surprise me considering it’s a cycling forum.

You see the occasional news item about "advanced driver caught at 120mph" of course, but most of the time, most advanced drivers get around, faster, smoother and SAFER than everyone else! (and this is reflected in the drop in insurance premiums that comes with advanced qualifications)

Drop in insurance premiums isn’t a given. Mrs F has a couple of advanced qualifications and it doesn’t affect her insurance. The issue is (and she agrees) is you can be as good as you want, but it’s all the other buggers on the road that you have no control over. You can’t predict the unpredictable

Mostly because I've done a lot of urban cycling.

The single best thing I did to improve my driving was take the motorcycle test. Gives you a whole new perspective on the roads.

If you want the best, and here's a shameless plug for a friend of mine, go see Reg:

To save folk having to look it up, he's in Bolton.

The single best thing I did to improve my driving was take the motorcycle test. Gives you a whole new perspective on the roads.

Completely agree. One of my friends road a bike for years and didn’t start driving cars until he was in his early thirties. He’s a very good driver. FIL is the same. I guess, not unlike cyclists, it helps develop an appreciation of how vulnerable other road users are.

aracer
I've been caught by a speed camera van. Twice. In both cases I observed the speed camera van as soon as it came into sight (over the brow of a hill, and around a corner). In both cases the camera van had already clocked me, based on the speed recorded on the notice. Getting done by a camera van provides no proof of lack of observation (sure there were signs, there are always signs and I've driven both those roads past the signs loads of times without there being a van there, no failure of observation there either).

I don't want to sound antagonistic, but this reply does suggest a lack of observation and in fact, re-enforces the "regression to the norm" factor i mentioned.

For example, you must have been exceeding the limit by a large margin to have been unable to slow your car to below the limit before the camera operator (who is human, just like you) could refocus on your particular car, pull the trigger, and wait the (min) ~2 sec while the measurement is taken etc. A modern car can deccelerate at over 1g, and hence loose around 22mph per second of braking. The laser speed detector is line-of-sight and needs a clear, un-interrupted view of a single car to produce an accurate reading, and it needs that for a few seconds (it averages multiple readings to try to avoid spurious errors).

In some tests i did with the Police to train the camera van operators, i could actually do well over 70 (on a test track btw, not the public road) in a "30 mph" zone, and still get the car below the 35mph threshold before the operator could zap me!

I theory, the cameras with their zoom lense system can zap you from up to 1000m away, but in practice this is generally not done, because of the difficulty of accurately focusing on a single car, and the measurement errors that creep in due to spurious reflections etc. And if the van can see you, you can see it! You might not be able to tell it's definitely a camera van from that distance (but they generally park in known places), but if you're speeding, and you see a suspicious van, SLOW DOWN!

(most sites are chosen to give a 100 to 300m "range" for the system)

You say "well there wasn't a camera van there yesterday" as some sort of reason or excuse for getting caught, whereas the fact there COULD have been a camera van there should have put you on full alert!

When driving there are three things you need to be able to (instantly)) react too:

1) What you CAN see (the road, other users and anything that helps you paint a picture of your surroundings, both near and far field, front, side and rear)

2) What you CAN'T see (Things that could be there, but hidden due to other objects, ie a car in a dip in the road, or hidden behind a lorry etc)

3) What you COULD see (Events that currently aren't occurring but might, based on experience. ie you see an empty junction up ahead. No car currently visible turning out, but there might be one about to do so)

The further you look up the road, and this is one of the corner stones of advanced driving ie proper, systematical, observation, the further into the future you are looking, so you need to start considering the most likely future events that could occur, even if they don't (and for the vast majority of your driving, probably 99.999% of the time they won't) occur

Please don't think i'm criticising you personally aracer, you are human ( i think 😉 ) just like the rest of us! I just want to demonstrate that human actions are predictable (on average) and that they can be modified and we can be taught to drive in a safer manner. As an Advanced driver you NEVER stop learning. I've been lucky enough to drive pretty much every car ever made, i've drifted across an ice lake at 120mph, driven at 223mph across the desert, slide wrc cars through forests, driven all over the world, in a massive number of situations and environments and i'm still learning to drive! The most advanced driver can learn something from the most basic driver, by listening, observing, and crucially, thinking about our driving we all get safer and smoother!

The single best thing I did to improve my driving was take the motorcycle test. Gives you a whole new perspective on the roads.

I'd make it compulsory to ride a motorbike for at least two years before being allowed into a car.

it helps develop an appreciation of how vulnerable other road users are.

Not just that. It's hard to switch off when riding a bike. Reading the road and better road positioning are big pluses. As is vastly increased observational skills. Better anticipation and always having an escape route. Oh and wheelies 😀

interesting post from maxtorque. some handy facts. but this:

I've been lucky enough to drive pretty much every car ever made, i've drifted across an ice lake at 120mph, driven at 223mph across the desert, slide wrc cars through forests, driven all over the world.

comes across a little:

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I've 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.

max torque, you talk a lot of sense..

If only more drivers were as aware of the difference between being able to pass your test & being a good driver.

It's criminal that you only get tested once on your ability to drive in your lifetime, & the there is no compulsory requirement to either advance your driving skills or re-test at regular intervals.

BTW the driver training I've done (HGV, PCV, hostile environment, numerous skid-pan courses, track days with coaching, military driver training & not forgetting my formative days on tractors & combines!), & it's no-where near as extensive as yours, has only helped. I wish more folks would take the time to undertake even the briefest additional training. I've been fortunate that a fair bit of mine I was paid to do.

driven at 223mph across the desert

This one intrigues, unless the desert was a salt flat or it was a tarmac road across a dessert.

The "advanced driver" tag irritates, I'd rather be in the passenger seat with Madame driving than any advanced driver. Madame's driving is nothing special but she's cautious, humble, considerate, careful, concentrated and slow. I don't know any "advanced drivers" with all those qualities. In fact those I knew in the British motorsport and motor club scene in the 70s and 80s drove fast, too fast, in the mistaken belief that their training and certificates somehow gave them skills that allowed them to ignore their inherent human limits and the laws of physics, I include the police motor club members. They seemed to think they had some magic method for driving fast safely but in fact were just driving fast.

One of the things I learned from motorsport is that it's possible to screw up at almost any speed but it hurts less if you're going slowly. And frankly most of what I learned is useless, when I drive into a bank of fog on the motorway, I'm in exactly the same predicament as anyone else making the same decisions about how much I can safely slow down without being bit from behind, because I'd like to be able to stop if there's a multiple pile-up ahead.

Whenever I hear 'advanced driver'

[img] [/img]

Jokes aside, good wisdom tbh.

I'd make it compulsory to ride a motorbike for at least two years before being allowed into a car.

I sort of agree apart from the fact that young / inexperienced drivers make mistakes, and when you make a mistake on a motorbike the consequences are often very severe.

I see also a school of thought that if you knew the risk was severe you'd be damn careful to avoid making a mistake (the same hyperbolic school of thought that says airbags should be replaced by a big spike) but sadly some inexperienced drivers are so inexperienced, even without being stupid, that we'd have a glut of KSI motorbike accidents instead.

Madame's driving is nothing special but she's cautious, humble, considerate, careful, concentrated and slow.

That sounds terrifying TBQH.

Why, Cougar? I can relax and fall asleep in the passenger seat. It's like being driven by a chauffeur (I have been driven by a professional chauffeur in a big Merc so feel well placed to compare). When I wake up it's usally because she's stopped for traffic lights or to hand over because she's tired.

Edukator
This one intrigues, unless the desert was a salt flat or it was a tarmac road across a dessert.

Highway 85 in Saudi.... (a section of which was closed specially for us that day 😉

[quote=maxtorque ]I don't want to sound antagonistic, but this reply does suggest a lack of observation and in fact, re-enforces the "regression to the norm" factor i mentioned.
For example, you must have been exceeding the limit by a large margin to have been unable to slow your car to below the limit before the camera operator (who is human, just like you) could refocus on your particular car, pull the trigger, and wait the (min) ~2 sec while the measurement is taken etc. A modern car can deccelerate at over 1g, and hence loose around 22mph per second of braking. The laser speed detector is line-of-sight and needs a clear, un-interrupted view of a single car to produce an accurate reading, and it needs that for a few seconds (it averages multiple readings to try to avoid spurious errors).

Spherical objects.

The first time I was caught I came over the brow of the hill, clocked the van as soon as it came into sight (it was in a layby quite some distance away, I could certainly have stopped in a fraction of that distance) and put the anchors on. The speed on the notice was 85mph, which was the speed I'd been doing. There's no way the van had me in sight for several seconds - it was capturing the speed as cars came into sight. TBH some of your comments on the tech are pretty spurious - it doesn't take several seconds to average multiple readings.

I'm thinking this is another one which falls into "all scenarios are the same as the ones I have experience of".

I was once pulled over in the middle of the night on an empty M1 for speeding, and told by the traffic cop “You can do 85mph all day long on the motorway, but please don’t do ???mph again”. He didn’t ticket me.

As has been said a few times speed very rarely causes accidents, but it undoubtedly makes the consequences of those accidents more severe. Unfortunately, as Maxtorque says, speed is pretty much the only driving characteristic that is monitored routinely on our roads. Cameras, gantries, vans and average speed sections only record speed.

All other parameters of poor driving need human policemen on the road, and that seems to be virtually a thing of the past. Phone use and drink driving are often only measured after an accident, and general poor, inconsiderate and unsafe practices are almost never punished.

Personally I’d much rather have a higher motorway speed limit, but have a far higher police presence to pull people who exhibited unsafe driving. Unfortunately now I perceive the opposite to be true - I actually think that the opportunity for speeding (whether safely or not) is less than ever on our busy roads, but the litany of poor driving practices that are now routine and uncommentworthy is growing, and so long as they occur at less than 70mph will never be picked up on or corrected.