We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
The MSE Forum Team would like to wish you all a Merry Christmas. However, we know this time of year can be difficult for some. If you're struggling during the festive period, here's a list of organisations that might be able to help
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Has MSE helped you to save or reclaim money this year? Share your 2025 MoneySaving success stories!
Intented prosecution - Exceed 50mph Motorway temp restriction (Roadworks) -ACD
Comments
-
Who said anything about driving to the signs not the conditions? The speed limit is the limit. When conditions are poor you should be driving more slowly if the conditions dictate that. When conditions are good you shouldn't be driving faster
What you are talking about here is the "maximum safe speed". This is a constantly varying limit that is affected by factors such as the road design, visibility, presence of pedestrians, car capability, car condition, whether, driver ability and numerous other factors. By sticking to the maximum safe speed and driving competently and with good observation we generally avoid having an accident.
A completely separate and often unrelated number is the "speed limit" which is the legal requirement as we all know.
We need to drive at a speed up to the maximum safe speed and treat the speed limit as a cap rather than a target in order to avoid accidents and avoid prosecution, which is basically what you are saying.
The problem is that determining the maximum safe speed does not actually involve numbers, it is a learned skill. In many ways it's analogous to catching a ball. You don't break out a calculator and calculate the velocity and the affect of gravity, you just run over and catch it. Most people can get fairly close even if they can't catch it every time. It's a completely separate area of the brain from the part that would do it mathematically.
Introducing a strictly enforced speed limit has similar issues, you still need to use the instinctive/skilled part of the brain, but you also have to read a dial and compare it's position to a number, using the mathematical part of the brain, which is an unwelcome distraction.
It is possible to stick to a speed limit without doing that. Most drivers know roughly what 30mph feels like, however this is less accurate and combined with strict enforcement means you risk prosecution.
This is the basis of my "assumption" that the driver who has accidentally crept up to 35 can be more observant than the person who is sticking religiously to a number.
pwllbwdr: If you disagree with this assumption, I'd be interested to hear why, and how you think the process works.0 -
What you are talking about here is the "maximum safe speed". This is a constantly varying limit that is affected by factors such as the road design, visibility, presence of pedestrians, car capability, car condition, whether, driver ability and numerous other factors. By sticking to the maximum safe speed and driving competently and with good observation we generally avoid having an accident.
A completely separate and often unrelated number is the "speed limit" which is the legal requirement as we all know.
We need to drive at a speed up to the maximum safe speed and treat the speed limit as a cap rather than a target in order to avoid accidents and avoid prosecution, which is basically what you are saying.
The problem is that determining the maximum safe speed does not actually involve numbers, it is a learned skill. In many ways it's analogous to catching a ball. You don't break out a calculator and calculate the velocity and the affect of gravity, you just run over and catch it. Most people can get fairly close even if they can't catch it every time. It's a completely separate area of the brain from the part that would do it mathematically.
Introducing a strictly enforced speed limit has similar issues, you still need to use the instinctive/skilled part of the brain, but you also have to read a dial and compare it's position to a number, using the mathematical part of the brain, which is an unwelcome distraction.
It is possible to stick to a speed limit without doing that. Most drivers know roughly what 30mph feels like, however this is less accurate and combined with strict enforcement means you risk prosecution.
This is the basis of my "assumption" that the driver who has accidentally crept up to 35 can be more observant than the person who is sticking religiously to a number.
pwllbwdr: If you disagree with this assumption, I'd be interested to hear why, and how you think the process works.
Spot on.
This is why I said in a previous post that cameras should be abolished in favour of traffic cops who have discretion.Who would people prefer to have coming down their road-Wayne in his saxo,fiddling with his stereo at 30 or someone with full attention in a properly maintained car at 35?
Cameras cant use common sense,cops can.Went shoplifting at the Disneystore today.
Got a huge Buzz out of it.0 -
My complaint is that the effort should be spent removing incompetence from the roads, not mitigating it's consequences through speed cameras, as this will result in a greater reduction in the number of KSIs
Unfortunately there isn't yet a camera that can capture incompetent drivers.. if you can invent one then you would make millions (and take 95% of the drivers off the road at the same time)...
Until then we have to work to the lowest common denominator.0 -
Unfortunately there isn't yet a camera that can capture incompetent drivers.. if you can invent one then you would make millions (and take 95% of the drivers off the road at the same time)...
The police have been successfully using the Mk1 eyeball for this kind of offence for all but the last 10 years0 -
funkycoldribena wrote: »Think that sort of sums it up.1965! about as outdated as your views;)
Not sure why you think my views are outdated - i was using data that is that old because it is still in the highway code!
What I was trying to understand was how the stopping distance at 30mph is only 20 feet less than that of 35mph (based on these old values) but in one of the posts someone stated that at the point mister 30mph had stopped mister 35mph is still doing 18mph.
If 20mph stopping distance is nearly 41 feet how does that work?
The posters maths work but in my head it seems "hinky".
The poster was using highway code values for stopping distances.
You obviously haven't noted they don't seem to change no matter what upgrades happen to cars.
The oldest copy i could find was 1965 which is the same as my 2008 version (stopping distance wise).
Someone else i found on the internet went to the library (who knew they still existed).
They found the following:-
For example you might be surprised to learn that back in 1946 the stopping distance at 50 mph was 175 feet. In the 2006 we have come a long way, the current Highway Code now quotes the stopping distance at 50 mph as......err......53 metres...(or 175 feet for any troglodyte imperialists still out there). Thank goodness for modern braking systems.
I can understand there would be some lag as old cars are phased off the roads and new ones come in but 50 to 60 years seems to be pushing the point.
anyway the OP's question was what would i do.
I'd have taken the course and the £60 fine.0 -
This is the basis of my "assumption" that the driver who has accidentally crept up to 35 can be more observant than the person who is sticking religiously to a number.
pwllbwdr: If you disagree with this assumption, I'd be interested to hear why, and how you think the process works.
A driver who knows his car will have a good idea of his speed without continually checking the dials. Engine noise, road noise, and so on. Your assumption is that the driver who is doing 30 has his attention continually diverted from road observation by his frequent checks of the speedo. I don't feel the need to check my speedo on a continuous basis, just an occasional glance in the same way I don't stare continuosly in the mirrors.
Any driver can be observant or unobservant, I see no reason at all to assume that a driver breaking the speed limit is likely to have a better grasp of the road and what else is out there than one who is obeying the speed limit.0 -
A driver who knows his car will have a good idea of his speed without continually checking the dials. Engine noise, road noise, and so on. Your assumption is that the driver who is doing 30 has his attention continually diverted from road observation by his frequent checks of the speedo. I don't feel the need to check my speedo on a continuous basis, just an occasional glance in the same way I don't stare continuosly in the mirrors.
I actually stated as such in my posts, however it is only a rough idea of your speed and in these days of rigorous speed enforcement, this rough idea is not adequate to protect yourself from prosecution. Sure you could compensate by sticking to 25 rather than 30, if you want to annoy everybody around you and risk a road rage incident, but in reality the speedo does need to be checked regularly if you want to make reasonable progress.Any driver can be observant or unobservant, I see no reason at all to assume that a driver breaking the speed limit is likely to have a better grasp of the road and what else is out there than one who is obeying the speed limit.
That isn't exactly what I said. I said that a driver who is not constantly checking their speedo is more likely to have a better grasp of the road and what else is out there than one who is constantly checking their speedo.
I also suggested that a driver who is not constantly checking their speedo is more likely to vary in speed and thus creep above the threshold necessary to trigger a camera.
Thus we have a system that penalises the observant driver who prefers to concentrate on the road in order to mitigate the effects of all the crap drivers who cause accidents.
I prefer to address the cause (crap drivers) rather tan trying to reduce the effects of the symptoms (accidents). Get the crap drivers into education or off the roads completely. Speed cameras just address the effects of the symptoms.0 -
The police have been successfully using the Mk1 eyeball for this kind of offence for all but the last 10 years
Not an automated system = requires police to monitor or review the footage which in turn would take traffic police off the roads which is what you (or someone on here) was complaining about originally...0 -
I prefer to address the cause (crap drivers) rather tan trying to reduce the effects of the symptoms (accidents). Get the crap drivers into education or off the roads completely. Speed cameras just address the effects of the symptoms.
I won't disagree with that. However, a part of that education would include an understanding of the non-intuitive way that speed adds up when considering stopping distances.0 -
Not sure why you think my views are outdated - i was using data that is that old because it is still in the highway code!
What I was trying to understand was how the stopping distance at 30mph is only 20 feet less than that of 35mph (based on these old values) but in one of the posts someone stated that at the point mister 30mph had stopped mister 35mph is still doing 18mph.
If 20mph stopping distance is nearly 41 feet how does that work?
The posters maths work but in my head it seems "hinky".
The poster was using highway code values for stopping distances.
You obviously haven't noted they don't seem to change no matter what upgrades happen to cars.
The oldest copy i could find was 1965 which is the same as my 2008 version (stopping distance wise).
Someone else i found on the internet went to the library (who knew they still existed).
They found the following:-
For example you might be surprised to learn that back in 1946 the stopping distance at 50 mph was 175 feet. In the 2006 we have come a long way, the current Highway Code now quotes the stopping distance at 50 mph as......err......53 metres...(or 175 feet for any troglodyte imperialists still out there). Thank goodness for modern braking systems.
I can understand there would be some lag as old cars are phased off the roads and new ones come in but 50 to 60 years seems to be pushing the point.
anyway the OP's question was what would i do.
I'd have taken the course and the £60 fine.
Apologies,I got you muddled with someone else!Went shoplifting at the Disneystore today.
Got a huge Buzz out of it.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.9K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.9K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.7K Spending & Discounts
- 246K Work, Benefits & Business
- 602.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.8K Life & Family
- 259.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards