Fed up with whinging speeders ?

piggydude

Interesting debate.

I'm an advanced motorcyclist, and have been instructed and examined by class 1 police motorcyclists. I was taught to carefully observe the 30, 40 and 50 mph limits (as far as possible without slavishly watching the speedo when I should be looking around for hazards)

As regards the national speed limit and overtaking in particular, I was taught that the last place you should be looking when overtaking is at your speedo. It's important to get through a manouver as safely as possible, which often means making rapid progress through the hazard. To this end, whilst executing a safe overtake of a motorist going at, say 50mph in a national speed limit zone, my bike may momentarily hit 75-80mph. As soon as the hazard has been negotiated, I will drop my speed back down to the limit.

This is good, safe, considerate riding practice, and obviously such an overtake would only be executed if prevailing conditions mean that is is safe to do so. It would not be good or safe riding practice to be watching my speedo to make sure that I didn't exceed 60 mph during the manouver, as I would potentially be putting myself and others in danger.

Don't get me wrong, I do NOT condone speeding, certainly not in town or urban areas, and not wantonly on the open road or motorway. But there are occasions as mentioned above where rigidly adhering to a 60mph limit is not the best practice.

if_i_was_a_richman

oldbill1969 wrote: »

Plod may have said that, but its was'nt the yellow bird box that was the danger but drivers who were exceding the speed limit having to break suddenly when they aproached it. Answer me this, does the driver who travels within the speed limit (passed in law) have to break suddenly when he aproaches a speed camera ? No its the speeder who breaks suddenly.

Oldbill, although this is usually the case how about the idiotic drivers who see a speed trap and brake to 10 or more MPH below the speed limit due to panic

scheming_gypsy

arabellacatpig wrote: »

It's a speed LIMIT....Not a TARGET!

lets hope i never follow you into an Asda car park where the speed limit is 5pm... it's a limit you know, not a target.

scheming_gypsy

piggydude wrote: »

As regards the national speed limit and overtaking in particular, I was taught that the last place you should be looking when overtaking is at your speedo. It's important to get through a manouver as safely as possible, which often means making rapid progress through the hazard. To this end, whilst executing a safe overtake of a motorist going at, say 50mph in a national speed limit zone, my bike may momentarily hit 75-80mph. As soon as the hazard has been negotiated, I will drop my speed back down to the limit.

.

that's pretty much what i said earlier too but people didn't like it.

cordial

skim wrote: »

In contrast I couldn't be bothered to read any of it after the first page with OldBill spouting off with the holier than thou attitude.

In 22 years of driving I've had one speeding fine when i was 21.
I think some speed limits are a farce - 30mph in town when 20 is the absolute maximum & then 70mph on the motorway which is far too low.

Try & justify this - why is the A610 from Langley Mill to Nottingham now 40mph (dual carriageway) when it used to be 70mph. There have been no major accidents etc.

This is an absolute classic from the anti-speed limit camp.

They want to be able to ignore all speed limits on a when-it-pleases-me basis (but won't admit to it) and then, when they realise that their arguments are both morally and logically bankrupt and founded only on selfishness, end up talking about one or two specific examples.

You cannot argue from the specific to the general. This is something these fine folk just don't seem capable of taking on board. Because one turkey dinner contained salmonella doesn't mean we have to do away with turkey dinners. The fact that one lottery ticket was successful doesn't mean we can all be millionnaires.

This kind of debating shows starkly the barrel-scraping in which the antis camp has to indulge when all the bluff and bluster is stripped away.

The Law is the Law. You change it via parliament and not at your own personal discretion. Before you think of claiming otherwise, be so kind as to advise the local burglar fraternity that they too have your full permission to disregard the Law and make sure they know your address.

scheming_gypsy

your argument lacks moral fibre there Cordial. You highlighted something totally legitimate and tried to turn it into an anti speed limit brigade bashing comment.
If there was no accident on ONE road, why should that ONE road have a reduced limit? what's it got to do with ignoring ALL speed limits? apart from nothing!

although talking about turkey dinners and burglars goes to prove that you're just picking up scraps and trying to justify your pointless comments.

tomstickland

piggydude wrote: »

As regards the national speed limit and overtaking in particular, I was taught that the last place you should be looking when overtaking is at your speedo. It's important to get through a manouver as safely as possible, which often means making rapid progress through the hazard. To this end, whilst executing a safe overtake of a motorist going at, say 50mph in a national speed limit zone, my bike may momentarily hit 75-80mph. As soon as the hazard has been negotiated, I will drop my speed back down to the limit.

That's interesting and tends to confirm the argument that a few have made here.

My whole point about this is if a concious decision is made, to go above the speed limit and you get caught you have to bite the bullet.

I agree with that. If you choose to break a law and are caught then don't moan.

tomstickland

cordial wrote: »

This is an absolute classic from the anti-speed limit camp.

They want to be able to ignore all speed limits on a when-it-pleases-me basis (but won't admit to it) and then, when they realise that their arguments are both morally and logically bankrupt and founded only on selfishness, end up talking about one or two specific examples.

The poster enquired why a dual carriageway had been lowered from 70 to 40mph and you then conclude that this means "these people" just want to speed whenever they like.

Because one turkey dinner contained salmonella doesn't mean we have to do away with turkey dinners. The fact that one lottery ticket was successful doesn't mean we can all be millionnaires.

By the same argument, because one person crashed into a sign post when they were on their phone it doesn't mean that the limit should be lowered to 40mph

As far as I'm aware, you can argue from the specific to the general, since the general is just a large set of specifics, of which some will share common features.

This kind of debating shows starkly the barrel-scraping in which the antis camp has to indulge when all the bluff and bluster is stripped away.

What debating. You've just gone on off on your own course in response to a statement made by someone else.
Please indicate the statements which are barrel scraping.


You've also got the wrong name today!

stumpjumper

conradmum wrote: »

I had a hairy incident once. I was driving home at about 10 o'clock at night over the Dunstable Downs. There's a blind summit at one point. As I cleared it I saw there was someone parked on the wrong side of the road, just ahead of me, (with their headlights full on, just to make matters worse - it took me a second to realise the situation.) I skidded to a halt about one foot from his car, looking the driver straight in his eyes. Yes, he was an idiot to do that. Did he deserve to die for it, though?
Had I been speeding we would both be dead, and probably my two young sons in the back too. It's NOT okay to speed just because YOU think it's safe. The speed limits are there for good reasons.!

may i ask a question - in the same situation, and you where going at the same speed you were that night, but the other driver had parked 2 or 3 ft closer to the summit... then, even tho you are not breaking the speed limit... you would have hit him, wouldnt you?

therefore you where driving too fast for the conditions, and by definition on the Police's accident report 'excessive speed' would have been a factor in the accident.


for the folks who adher to the limits... can you drive perfectly safely if you taped a piece of paper over your speedometre? remember an MOT test will not fail you if your speedometre doesnt work (tho you cant pass an SVA test if building a kit car without a working speedo)

before_hollywood

cordial wrote: »

Driving habitually and casually above the speed limit is exactly that. Hopefully, there's a good chance that people who do so will indeed end up banned.... you know - the kind you dislike so much.

The OP possibly didn't realise how beset MSE is with the "whingeing tendency" - the kind who think that they are above the law or that they are a one person, self-elected Traffic Commissioner.

if you are going to quote a post, please be decent enough to read the whole thing and understand it. my point was that compared to the severity of the crime the resources and emphasis on minor traffic violations is out of proportion, and that the sentances and punishments for the more serious crimes of a motoring nature (no insurance, drink driving etc) are laughable.

do you actually drive?