Speeding offence

matttye

Bantex wrote: »

No it's not. What is the advantage?

I'm going to let you in on a little secret, but don't tell anyone.. the faster you drive, the less time your journey takes.

I know it's hard to believe, but it's true.

Joe_Horner

Bantex wrote: »

Still nobody had said what the advantage of driving over the limit is.

That's possibly because, until now, no-one on here's asked? If you want to move the discussion away from safety now that the "it's automatically dangerous" myth has been killed, then fine. But please don't try to word it as if it's something that no-one's been able to explain, when no-one's actually been asked.

Since you asked:

Congestion:
A road with traffic moving at a certain speed can only physically pass a certain number of vehicles in a given time. As roads become more congested there are two ways to improve that rate. You can make the roads wider, or you can increase the speed at which the traffic flows. That's a simple matter of mathematics.

The (many) unneccesarily low limits on our roads create bottlenecks and cause congestion. Driving above the limit, where appropriate, certainly won't cure that but it can alleviate it in some circumstances.

Environmental:
Many limits leave cars operating inefficiently. 40 and 50, limits are often not fast enough for many modern cars to get comfortably into top gear at efficient engine speeds. Even 60 can be too slow for that in some cars nowadays, where top gear is exceptionally high for economy. This wasn't the case when most limits were imposed - cars with 4 speed boxes would usually pull quite happily in top from around 30 - 35mph. They don't any more.

There used to be a rule of thumb that cars were most efficient around 50-55mph, that's now closer to 60-65. So sitting at 50 to comply with some random lollipop means more CO2 (if you're worried about plant food) and more genuine pollutants if you're not.

Driving at a speed where the car is flexible, without extra gear changes etc, also reduces wear and tear on the car itself which is also environmentally good in the long term because it means fewer parts being replaced.

Safety:
It's a fact of our wonderful human brains that, if they feel under-occupied, they find it difficult to maintain concentration. That applies to driving slower than the conditions require and can be very hard to guard against. A good driver will develop strategies to maintain alertness against that, but many don't. By increasing speed to the point that your brain is engaged in more than watching the speedo, overall alertness is improved.

It also reduces overall journey times, which (a) reduces the chance of tiredness setting in and (b) reduces the physical time available for mistakes to be made. Both of which increase safety.

But the biggest safety benefit is in drivers taking responsibility for their own decisions and actions behind the wheel. Having them actually think about what's appropriate rather than relying on arbitrary numbers, in the majority of cases, improves their overall driving ability and awareness.

There are undoubtedly some who just drive as fast as they can (hopefully) without falling off the road, but they should come under dangerous driving rather than the type of speeding being discussed here.

Obviously, there's a trade-off in the safety points between increased alertness / reduced tiredness and the increased risks of the higher speed, but being made to drive significantly below an appropriate speed for the conditions skews that balance towards inattentiveness.



Hope that helps for now

brat

Bantex wrote: »

No it's not. What is the advantage?

Notwithstanding the illegality of exceeding the speed limit...

If one exceeds the speed limit at a speed that is appropriate to the conditions, the advantages could be as follows...

1. A shorter journey time
2. Less time exposed to risk
3. Less road congestion
4. Smoother driving style
5. Concentration and anticipation dividend
6. More time to react

There's probably a few more too.

Edit - cross posted with Joe

Bantex_2

matttye wrote: »

I'm going to let you in on a little secret, but don't tell anyone.. the faster you drive, the less time your journey takes.

I know it's hard to believe, but it's true.

Think it works out at around 4 mins on an average 30 mile (5mph over limit) journey. I would consider that inconsequential.

brat

Bantex wrote: »

Think it works out at around 4 mins on an average 30 mile (5mph over limit) journey. I would consider that inconsequential.

With the exception of motorways and other trunk roads, I don't believe that most drivers exceed limits to save journey time. I think they do it because it the speed feels right for the conditions.

Bantex_2

brat wrote: »

With the exception of motorways and other trunk roads, I don't believe that most drivers exceed limits to save journey time. I think they do it because it the speed feels right for the conditions.

I would suspect that most don't have a clue how fast they are going or whether it is suitable for the conditions or not.

matttye

Bantex wrote: »

Think it works out at around 4 mins on an average 30 mile (5mph over limit) journey. I would consider that inconsequential.

So if you exceed the limit by 10mph and travel 120 miles, then you'd save 32 minutes. Does that seem inconsequential?

Guess how many miles I travel every other weekend and how much I exceed the limit by (roughly)?

Bantex_2

matttye wrote: »

So if you exceed the limit by 10mph and travel 120 miles, then you'd save 32 minutes. Does that seem inconsequential?

Guess how many miles I travel every other weekend and how much I exceed the limit by (roughly)?

That would depend on the speed limit. If you were doing 80 in a 70 limit I believe it would save around 12 minutes (I think)
On a hour and a half journey doesn't seem much.

shaun_from_Africa

But if you were doing 50 in a 40 limit, the journey would take 36 minutes less. (2 hrs 24 minutes instead of 3 hours).

If driving at 50 instead of 40 could be done safely, then a time saving of over half an hour could make it worthwhile for many people.

Bantex_2

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

But if you were doing 50 in a 40 limit, the journey would take 36 minutes less. (2 hrs 24 minutes instead of 3 hours).

If driving at 50 instead of 40 could be done safely, then a time saving of over half an hour could make it worthwhile for many people.

True, but that is a fairly hefty 25% over the limit.

Can't think of many 120 mile trips limited to 40mph all the way though.