Why aren't cars speed limited?

motorguy

Deastons wrote: »

But if I hit and killed someone and it could be proved I was doing 79mph, the charges against me would be very different.

I'd be interested to know what they're doing walking down one of the lanes of a dual carriageway or motorway....

.... and likewise i think whether you hit them at 70MPH or 79MPH they're a goner anyway.

Deastons

treboeth wrote: »

So which lane is the fast lane?

All lanes have the same speed limit.

No no no. The one next to the lane reserved for people who need to do a wee is called the slow lane, the middle lane is called the middle lane and then the one on the right is called the fast lane. I know that because that's what other people have told me (I've forgotten everything I learnt for my driving test, make no efforts to refresh myself and am also blissfully unaware of all the signs that say "Keep left unless overtaking.")

I also find driving everywhere else at a steady 40mph saves wear on my brakes - and I'm sure 40mph is fine in a 30 zone. Although I do slam my brakes on at the slightest hint of something that could be a speed camera. And to make absolutely sure, I slow down to 20mph as I pass it.

All this means I can pay a lot less attention to the road and more attention on my phone call.

Deastons

motorguy wrote: »

I'd be interested to know what they're doing walking down one of the lanes of a dual carriageway or motorway....

.... and likewise i think whether you hit them at 70MPH or 79MPH they're a goner anyway.

...your honour.

Car_54

Deastons wrote: »

But if I hit and killed someone and it could be proved I was doing 79mph, the charges against me would be very different.

Very different from what?

Depending on the circumstances, you might be charged with causing death by careless or dangerous driving. In that event, the 79 "threshold" would be irrelevant.

Or you might simply be charged with speeding. AIUI it is well established in case law that speed alone is not enough to uphold a charge of CD or DD (except in Scotland).

[Deleted User]

Deastons wrote: »

No no no. The one next to the lane reserved for people who need to do a wee is called the slow lane, the middle lane is called the middle lane and then the one on the right is called the fast lane. I know that because that's what other people have told me (I've forgotten everything I learnt for my driving test, make no efforts to refresh myself and am also blissfully unaware of all the signs that say "Keep left unless overtaking.")

I also find driving everywhere else at a steady 40mph saves wear on my brakes - and I'm sure 40mph is fine in a 30 zone. Although I do slam my brakes on at the slightest hint of something that could be a speed camera. And to make absolutely sure, I slow down to 20mph as I pass it.

All this means I can pay a lot less attention to the road and more attention on my phone call.

And it`s posts like this that get you added to the troll list, have fun posting more dross.

Deastons

treboeth wrote: »

have fun posting more dross.

Aaaw, aren't you nice. Thank you!

Deastons

Car_54 wrote: »

Very different from what?

Depending on the circumstances, you might be charged with causing death by careless or dangerous driving. In that event, the 79 "threshold" would be irrelevant.

Or you might simply be charged with speeding. AIUI it is well established in case law that speed alone is not enough to uphold a charge of CD or DD (except in Scotland).

I disagree. If I was driving along a motorway paying full attention to the road, doing 70mph and someone ran in front of me, I wouldn't be charged with anything.

But if there was evidence that I was breaking the speed limit, the police would have something to pin on me. They could argue the person might have survived or I might have had more time to react etc.

Whether or not the person should have been there doesn't come into it.

Car_54

Deastons wrote: »

I disagree. If I was driving along a motorway paying full attention to the road, doing 70mph and someone ran in front of me, I wouldn't be charged with anything.

But if there was evidence that I was breaking the speed limit, the police would have something to pin on me. They could argue the person might have survived or I might have had more time to react etc.

Whether or not the person should have been there doesn't come into it.

Whether you were doing 70 or 79, the deciding factor in determining CD or DD would be whether a competent and careful driver could have stopped in the circumstances.

As I said above, speed alone is not a factor. The courts have decided that, whether you like it or not.

John-K_3

Deastons wrote: »

I certainly do. I'm worried about wearing out my indicator bulbs, so by sitting in the middle lane I don't need to keep indicating to overtake lorries in the slow lane, but anyone who wants to go faster than my steady 60mph can use the fast lane. That way I'm not causing anyone any issues and I can just switch-off and listen to the radio.

Poor trolling at this point, I am afraid.

I wonder why people do this. There are plenty of people on here who genuinely want to help, and then you get people who just want to wind others up. Why?

Warwick_Hunt

Car_54 wrote: »

Whether you were doing 70 or 79, the deciding factor in determining CD or DD would be whether a competent and careful driver could have stopped in the circumstances.

As I said above, speed alone is not a factor. The courts have decided that, whether you like it or not.

No, the deciding factor would be was his driving below or far below the standard expected of a competent driver.