people driving sooooo slow cos they dont know the speed limit!

mikey72

Idiophreak wrote: »

Oh yes, because that's exactly the same thing... :j

It iis to me if you're picking and choosing which laws you like. Your insured, it won't cost you much.
If I'm caught, it'll be a slap on the wrist I'm prepared to take.

Idiophreak

mikey72 wrote: »

It iis to me if you're picking and choosing which laws you like. Your insured, it won't cost you much.
If I'm caught, it'll be a slap on the wrist I'm prepared to take.

It's not a question of liking or disliking them, though.

If they passed a law saying "when you see a woman in the street, you have to throw a rock at her", would you do it? Would you say "well, the law is the law is the law" and start stoning people? Or would you decide that the law wasn't passed in the interest of the public and carry on with life as usual and take any consequences that may befall you as a result?

fivetide

Lum wrote: »

If you do hit someone then your speed was dangerous and can/should be prosecuted for dangerous driving.

Quite possible to have a crash without speeding and not get done for dangerous driving.

See Lord Ahmed and his motorway late night smash. Also note before he hit that car and killed the chap, at least one other car had also clipped it. There goes the late night motorway safe speeding theory.

It is possible to do a dangerous speed while being well below the limit. Look at that dual carriageway picture I posted on the last page. I could do 70mph on that road and I would not be speeding, however it would still be dangerous and if I did this then I should be prosecuted for it.

Quite agree. Never said otherwise.

There are other roads where I could be exceeding the speed limit and not be dangerous..

Because you use the force? Have a crystal ball? Being on the road is in itself dangerous. You don't always know what will happen. What if there are nails on the road or a stolen car barrels out of a side road?

The simple fact is you don't have a clue and going faster only means it takes more time to stop.

Its a fact. It isn't something that can be disputed.

You've never done any long distance work, have you?

Good use of question mark. this implies you aren't going to do exactly what you do next which is make an assumption/patronise a bit...

For short distance drivers, "it's only a couple of minutes". But over a distance these add up and now it's half an hour. As a result of this you are now hitting the M6 past Birmingham at 3PM instead of 2:30PM, now the delay is an hour and a half and you are hitting the Thelwall viaduct 5PM instead of 3:30PM meaning you will likely get to Manchester by 6:30PM instead of 4PM.

HGV drivers have it worse because their daily limits could mean the difference between getting home that night or spending a night in a layby in the outskirts of the city, at risk of having their truck set on fire by yobbos.

Company car drivers don't have time limits, but their employers often expect them to complete their journey anyway, even if it means driving into the early hours of the morning, then they are still expected to be on-site the next day at 9AM. For these people the risk becomes one of driving whilst tired.

Sorry but no.

HGV drivers are limited anyway on what they can do so 40mph on a single carriageway anyhow. Are you seriously suggesting that it is ok for a HGV to speed through a village to save a minute?

That is what we are talking about here.

To travel 2 miles at 30 mph takes one minute more than doing it at 40. One whole minute. Now, in my experience, any HGV traveling through 30 villages at a time is not going to have a fast route and there are very few 30mph limits on the M1.

I don't agree with just pick and choosing what laws you obey, however I am within my rights to object to those laws on a public forum and to campaign for their alteration or removal.

Feel free to object, that's fine. I note you don't say "and therefore I should simply be allowed to break them" which appears to be Idiophreak's mantra.

5t.

Lum

fivetide wrote: »

Quite possible to have a crash without speeding and not get done for dangerous driving.

See Lord Ahmed and his motorway late night smash. Also note before he hit that car and killed the chap, at least one other car had also clipped it. There goes the late night motorway safe speeding theory.

Well yes, there was the presumption that you hit someone and are found to be at fault. If you hit someone and are found to not be at fault, e.g. if they changed lane in front of you, then your speed may not have been dangerous.

Because you use the force? Have a crystal ball? Being on the road is in itself dangerous. You don't always know what will happen. What if there are nails on the road or a stolen car barrels out of a side road?

Indeed, and you need to accept a certain degree of risk, otherwise we'd be back at the days of a 9mph speed limit and a bloke with a red flag in front of you.

The nails on the road example is a risk which is almost unavoidable. If there is a side road coming up then you need to be more alert and possibly be going slower depending on visibility.

What makes the number at the side of the road the be all and end all of what is an acceptable risk. They are often set for political reasons and/or in response to an incident that had nothing to do with speed (e.g. a 60mph road being reduced to 50+cameras in response to 5 people being killed by a drunk driver that was doing 90). They are often set by people who don't drive and have never held a driving licence! Long gone are the days when they were set by competent and experienced traffic engineers.

Good use of question mark. this implies you aren't going to do exactly what you do next which is make an assumption/patronise a bit...

That bit wasn't directed specifically at you, it was addressing the argument that several people have made on this thread that these people are "only saving a few minutes" and that attempting to do so is worthless and impatient.

Sorry but no.

HGV drivers are limited anyway on what they can do so 40mph on a single carriageway anyhow. Are you seriously suggesting that it is ok for a HGV to speed through a village to save a minute?

That is what we are talking about here.

Really? I thought we were talking about national speed limit roads. NSL for a HGV on a long flat straight single carriageway is 40mph, often they will end up with a queue of cars behind them who don't want to overtake. I have no objection to an HGV doing 50+ on such a road and the drivers will save significant time by doing so. I also object to the 56mph limiters they have due to the "elephant racing" effect this creates which slows everyone down. It's particularly fun once you realise that coaches have a 60mph limiter.

Feel free to object, that's fine. I note you don't say "and therefore I should simply be allowed to break them" which appears to be Idiophreak's mantra.

I can't speak for him. I personally don't object to other people who choose to break certain speed limits, I'm sure the camera partnerships and some police officers would, though I wish they didn't.

Idiophreak

fivetide wrote: »

Feel free to object, that's fine. I note you don't say "and therefore I should simply be allowed to break them" which appears to be Idiophreak's mantra.

I didn't say I should be allowed to break them, just that I break them. Yes, I'd advocate the removal of "speeding" as a crime....but in the meantime, I live in this country and I accept that I should be bound by the laws. If the police really want to prosecute me *for doing nothing wrong*, I'll pay their [STRIKE]stealth tax[/STRIKE] fine and carry on.

lindopski_2

Dont get me wrong here folks.
I can see why people at 3 am on an empty motorway would do 90mph and to be fair that doesnt bother me that much, so long as they and their family realise that it isnt anyone elses 'fault' if the ambulance or police are delayed getting to the wreck.
You do 90 and you may pay the price - ok the cance may be 0.01% but still the chance exists of a fatal outcome and you and they have to accept that.
Sorry he/she dies because they were doing 90mph and the probability of survival is fairly low, even with your safety haven that is the modern car.

We can also all look at a road and think that we know that we can go faster than 30 on this, however there is always the unknown risk.
there could be a cyclist around the next bend lying on the ground as he/she has fallen over - you see him last minute and swerve into the little kid that has just ran out to retrieve his ball or her dolly. The unknown element is what will throw you, or more likely you them as you hit them.
30 limits usually have a hidden entry, or something that someone has deemed as a risk. Even at 3am in a 30 you could have the local druggie or wino spiralling out of a field into the road. yeah its their fault but you may still have to live with the fact that you have just killed someone if you are driving at 40+ and cant avoid them.
At 30 you may still hit them and they have according to figures at least a better chance of living.
Plus in a case like that who knows how they will judge it, will they throw the book at you for speeding even if the person was off their face. I dont know but I do know I dont want to go there myself.

Hence I drive at 30 even at 3am

Idiophreak

fivetide wrote: »

HGV drivers are limited anyway on what they can do so 40mph on a single carriageway anyhow. Are you seriously suggesting that it is ok for a HGV to speed through a village to save a minute?

That is what we are talking about here.

No, that's what *you're* talking about.

You're making the backward and emotive judgement that 30mph limits are only installed in places where they're appropriate....like "a village". If you recall, the example we're actually talking about was:

"half mile stretch.... Perfectly straight, not built up, perfect road surface"

So, your question is actually "are you seriously suggesting that it is OK for a HGV to speed along a half mile stretch...perfectly straight, not built up, perfect road surface to save a minute"?

Actually, yeah...that might be reasonable...of course, I wouldn't know...I'm not a HGV driver, so I don't know the capability of the vehicle or the driver...So I can answer a question I *do* know the answer to:

"are you seriously suggesting that it is OK for a well maintained, modern, well equipped car driven by a fully mobile young driver with fast reflexes and perfect vision to speed along a half mile stretch...perfectly straight, not built up, perfect road surface to save a minute"?

Yes, sounds fine to me.

Now, lets got back to your clever emotive kind of argument:
"are you seriously suggesting that it is OK for a HGV to barrel recklessly past a school gates at 3:30PM?" Hmm, maybe not.

I think the clues are in how you ask the question...

fivetide

Lum wrote: »

Well yes, there was the presumption that you hit someone and are found to be at fault. If you hit someone and are found to not be at fault, e.g. if they changed lane in front of you, then your speed may not have been dangerous.

Indeed, and you need to accept a certain degree of risk, otherwise we'd be back at the days of a 9mph speed limit and a bloke with a red flag in front of you.

Quite agree. I'm not saying I never speed, I just don't do it in a 30 limit and unlike Idiophreak I know that I am doing something wrong.

The nails on the road example is a risk which is almost unavoidable. If there is a side road coming up then you need to be more alert and possibly be going slower depending on visibility.

Agree but that's the point, unless you are Luke Skywalker it is impossible to say that speeding is safe/you are doing nothing wrong. The faster you are travelling the more likelyhood there is of an accident and/or serious injury and you can't know everything all the time.

What makes the number at the side of the road the be all and end all of what is an acceptable risk. They are often set for political reasons and/or in response to an incident that had nothing to do with speed (e.g. a 60mph road being reduced to 50+cameras in response to 5 people being killed by a drunk driver that was doing 90). They are often set by people who don't drive and have never held a driving licence! Long gone are the days when they were set by competent and experienced traffic engineers.

Again, agreed, same as setting the motorway limit at 80. Quite happy with that given the improvements in car and safety technology. I would like a French system with a lower wet limit though. That way all those saying they aren't speeding when in fact they are going a bit too fast for the conditions (which is neither dangerous driving nor driving wthout due care) could be made to think about the right speed to travel at.

That bit wasn't directed specifically at you, it was addressing the argument that several people have made on this thread that these people are "only saving a few minutes" and that attempting to do so is worthless and impatient.

Apologies, but I stand by what I said re: saving a few minutes though!

Really? I thought we were talking about national speed limit roads. NSL for a HGV on a long flat straight single carriageway is 40mph, often they will end up with a queue of cars behind them who don't want to overtake. I have no objection to an HGV doing 50+ on such a road and the drivers will save significant time by doing so. I also object to the 56mph limiters they have due to the "elephant racing" effect this creates which slows everyone down. It's particularly fun once you realise that coaches have a 60mph limiter.

Motorways are NSL roads are they not? Most big A roads are also NSL so for a HGV to be in a 30 limit most times they will be in a city centre. If they aren't then chances are they are already going very slowly anyway and not making a lot of progress anyway.

I would tend to agree on removing the 40mph limit, It does make sense on say the single carriageway sections of the A1.

However, living up in Scotland the A9 is a road that is regularly clogged with lorries. You get behind one and you really wish they'd go a bit quicker. However, too many stories like this suggest that HGVs going quickly is a bad idea

http://news.stv.tv/scotland/tayside/251598-ambulance-and-lorry-smash-into-fallen-trees-on-the-a9/

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-tayside-central-12624909

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-tayside-central-12065624

http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/Article.aspx/722624

etc etc all HGVs smashing into each other/vans so thank god not a family going on holiday.

Mind, Idiophreak, I'm sure they just though the limit was just pulled out of thin air right?

Rather than remove the limiters, I'd look to the EU again. Germany specifically. Less deaths on the motorways and big sections with no limits. At the same time HGVs can't overtake so you don't get 56mph boy trying to overtake 55.5mph boy (or Idiophreak dawdling along because he likes to keep his speed down on safe roads) and backing the traffic up.

I can't speak for him. I personally don't object to other people who choose to break certain speed limits, I'm sure the camera partnerships and some police officers would, though I wish they didn't.

Also agreed. I wasn't asking you to. As I've done here, it was a better way of replying that's all.

5t.

EDit to add:

You're making the backward and emotive judgement that 30mph limits are only installed in places where they're appropriate....like "a village". If you recall, the example we're actually talking about was:

"half mile stretch.... Perfectly straight, not built up, perfect road surface"

No we are talking about speeding in 30mph limits. Either you obey the law or you don't. Again, you can't pick and choose when and where to obey.

I am not sure why you are struggling with the concept, several people have tried to make the point to you now.

5t.

Hammyman

roddydogs wrote: »

What about the folks who slow down for speed cameras when its Facing towards them?
Speed cameras sited in the middle of the road can only do 1 way at a time.

Ones pointing towards you are called TRUVELO and photograph the FRONT of the car including the numberplate and the driver.......

So that is probably why they're slowing down.

Lum

lindopski wrote: »

We can also all look at a road and think that we know that we can go faster than 30 on this, however there is always the unknown risk.
there could be a cyclist around the next bend lying on the ground as he/she has fallen over - you see him last minute and swerve into the little kid that has just ran out to retrieve his ball or her dolly. The unknown element is what will throw you, or more likely you them as you hit them.

Just because someone chooses to go above 30 on the straight section doesn't mean they should be doing 30 on the bend. "Always be able to stop in the distance you know to be clear" means you will need to be going slower around bends that you can't see round. Depending on the road this may mean you do less than the 30 limit for the bend while still being safe to do 40 on the straight bits.

At 30 you may still hit them and they have according to figures at least a better chance of living.

A popular misleading statistic used by the camera partnerships. While it's technically true it fails to take into account that even a dangerous speeder will attempt to slow down in the event that someone runs out, thus this statistic exaggerates the probability of causing a KSI.

My big worry, given the current message of blind obedience to the speed limit, is the number of drivers who spend more time looking at their speedo than the road. I would rather be hit by someone who was doing 40, but saw me and slammed on the brakes and was doing 20 when they hit me, than be hit by someone who was doing 30 and didn't see me and thus made no attempt to slow down.

I have addressed this issue in my own car by fitting a little heads up display unit with a large digital display of my speed, thus reducing the time that a speedo check takes for me, however I can't force everyone else to do this.