Speeding offence

Joe_Horner

Bantex wrote: »

Did you realise that you were doing 35mph?

No, because my eyes weren't glued to the speedo. Just in case a kitten carrying a basket of nuns leapt out of the treeline in front of me I was watching the road instead.

If someone had asked me at the time how fast I was driving then (without looking) I would probably have said I was "around 30 - 35", but the real answer would have been:

"at a safe speed on this fine, sunny, day for the clear, open, road ahead of me with wide, flat verges and no other active junctions and no vehicles on either side - except what looks like a Transit parked in that lay-by a mile ahead. Must be ready to move towards the centre in case of his door opening and to slow down if he shows any sign of pulling out".

Of course, none of that (which is what would actually have been going through my head) can give the same level of safety as "Oh, look, the lollipop says 30, better take my eyes off the road for a second to make sure the wizzy pointer agrees"



eta: Incidentally, in contrast to the complete lack of hazards between that viewpoint and the NSL, once you enter the NSL you have:

A sweeping right-hander with two entrances (including a hotel, so likely to be non-locals) on the outside apex

About 1/2 mile of tree-lined both sides with hidden entrances coming out of the trees

A fairly sharp left hander with a side road about 50 yards past its exit

Another 3/4 mile or so of causeway with cross winds and adverse camber leaning towards a footway and cycle track.


But it's assumed you can judge your own safe speed, up to 60mph, past that little lot.

custardy

matttye wrote: »

Need any more be said to show that they are simply to earn revenue?

There is even a gap between the two lanes here, so any chance of a collision is reduced as the traffic has more space.

That 'gap' is a right hand filter lane. I doubt speed limits are reviewed the moment a business closes.

matttye

custardy wrote: »

That 'gap' is a right hand filter lane. I doubt speed limits are reviewed the moment a business closes.

I understand that, but if you look closely there is still a gap between the two lanes after the turning - as the lanes start to return to there just being two. So at the point where Joe was caught speeding up early, there was likely a gap between the two lanes as well.

brat

Bantex wrote: »

AdrianC wrote:

How about if you don't hit anything, though...?

Is going over the limit going to make it less likely that you hit something?

Steven Stradling of Napier University conducted some research about 10-12 years ago where he discovered that those who got speeding tickets also had more crashes. This research was flawed because he took no account of annual mileage driven by each driver. It may as well have said, if you drive 50,000 miles per year, you are more likely to be crash involved and more likely to get a speeding ticket than a person who drives 5,000 miles per year. However the headline statement of this flawed research was again used to promote the road safety effectiveness of speed cameras.
Further analysis of this research is very likely to have concluded that drivers who get speed tickets are (on average) significantly safer per mile than those who don't.

It's not hard to understand why those who have an understandable desire to promote and validate cheap road safety will lap up this kind of naive flawed research.

Bantex_2

Joe_Horner wrote: »

No, because my eyes weren't glued to the speedo. Just in case a kitten carrying a basket of nuns leapt out of the treeline in front of me I was watching the road instead.

If someone had asked me at the time how fast I was driving then (without looking) I would probably have said I was "around 30 - 35", but the real answer would have been:

"at a safe speed on this fine, sunny, day for the clear, open, road ahead of me with wide, flat verges and no other active junctions and no vehicles on either side - except what looks like a Transit parked in that lay-by a mile ahead. Must be ready to move towards the centre in case of his door opening and to slow down if he shows any sign of pulling out".

Of course, none of that (which is what would actually have been going through my head) can give the same level of safety as "Oh, look, the lollipop says 30, better take my eyes off the road for a second to make sure the wizzy pointer agrees"



eta: Incidentally, in contrast to the complete lack of hazards between that viewpoint and the NSL, once you enter the NSL you have:

A sweeping right-hander with two entrances (including a hotel, so likely to be non-locals) on the outside apex

About 1/2 mile of tree-lined both sides with hidden entrances coming out of the trees

A fairly sharp left hander with a side road about 50 yards past its exit

Another 3/4 mile or so of causeway with cross winds and adverse camber leaning towards a footway and cycle track.


But it's assumed you can judge your own safe speed, up to 60mph, past that little lot.

So you are incapable of judging your speed or keeping an eye on the speedo? Surprised you managed to pass the driving test.

Bantex_2

brat wrote: »

Steven Stradling of Napier University conducted some research about 10-12 years ago where he discovered that those who got speeding tickets also had more crashes. This research was flawed because he took no account of annual mileage driven by each driver. It may as well have said, if you drive 50,000 miles per year, you are more likely to be crash involved and more likely to get a speeding ticket than a person who drives 5,000 miles per year. However the headline statement of this flawed research was again used to promote the road safety effectiveness of speed cameras.
Further analysis of this research is very likely to have concluded that drivers who get speed tickets are (on average) significantly safer per mile than those who don't.

It's not hard to understand why those who have an understandable desire to promote and validate cheap road safety will lap up this kind of naive flawed research.

And you base that assumption on what?

kwmlondon

matttye wrote: »

Please tell me what the risk is of going over the speed limit on a quiet motorway at night.

I could literally do donuts in lanes 2-4 on parts of the A1(M) at night and I wouldn't get hit by anyone.

The entire motorway system could benefit from higher variable speed limits. I don't see any reason why you couldn't travel safely at 100mph on parts of the A1(M) (and I'm sure many other motorways) at night. There are 4 lanes and lanes 2-4 are empty save for the odd car every few hundred metres.

---

I find it laughable that so many decisions on the road are left up to the judgement of the driver yet if you slightly exceed the speed limit it's viewed as "hurr durr dangerous."

I was following someone yesterday who was travelling 50 in a 60 but was swerving all over the road, right up to the middle of the lane. I'd much rather see someone who was slightly exceeding the speed limit but properly in control of the vehicle.

Yes, you're right, there's very little risk on a quiet motorway at night. I'm going to play devils advocate and say that if you were doing 100mph instead of 70mph and, say, a deer ran onto the road you'd find it harder to avoid it and if you hit it you'd definitely sustain more damage, but I'm only saying that to say that although the risk is lower, I do think that going faster will increase the chances of an accident. Taking it down to actual risk ratios? I could not hazard a guess - I'm not a statistician.

The real issue, for me, is of being aware of the risk to your license. If you can see a long way ahead and the road is clear and it's quiet then you have to weigh up the likelihood of plod lurking in a layby. On the M4 when I get to Wales I always keep my speed below 75mph because I KNOW that they have more time on their hands and love to pull someone even if they're doing 77mph. However, once in England the traffic cops don't tend to have that much spare time so you can do 80 but you still have to keep your wits about you.

If someone pays attention to the road and the traffic they can normally identify areas where it's less of a risk to go over the speed limit, and be aware of when it's wise to reel the pace in somewhat, for the sake of one's license.

That's my whole issue with the OPs dad, not that he's speeding, per se, but that he's so unaware of his surroundings that he's accrued so many points in such a short time. That, to me, indicated a very risky driver who is blatantly unaware of how to drive safely.

DirectDebacle

brat wrote: »

......Further analysis of this research is very likely to have concluded that drivers who get speed tickets are (on average) significantly safer per mile than those who don't.

Your logic is that the more speeding tickets you get the safer the driver you are? Interesting concept.

Have you ever wondered why insurance companies tend not to lower premiums for those with speeding tickets?

AdrianC

DirectDebacle wrote: »

Your logic is that the more speeding tickets you get the safer the driver you are? Interesting concept.

Not quite what he said, but...

Have you ever wondered why insurance companies tend not to lower premiums for those with speeding tickets?

Have you ever wondered why they don't raise premiums, either?

Bantex_2

I find the thought of drivers who are not even aware of what speed they are doing rather worrying. Weighing up the risk and purposefully going over the limit at least shows a level of concentration.