Why is speeding socially acceptable?

John_G_Jones

consumers_revenge wrote: »

Speeding wrecks life’s. Simples.

The DJ is a dickh@@d. Simples.

Radioland keyboard warrior.

There is nothing inherently wrong about high speed if the conditions allow it. Doing 150mph on an empty, straight piece of motorway on a clear, well lit summer evening in a well maintained modern car is no more dangerous than doing the same on a stretch of derestricted autobahn where it would rightly be viewed as appropriate.

Inappropriate speed is a different issue, and the two should not be conflated. 60 in dense fog is too fast on pretty much any road, as is the same speed in very heavy rain.

I wanted to see if the limiter on my last car was as lax as rumour suggested so ran it up and down to it over about a mile on a stretch of the M11a couple of years back. No danger to anyone as I could see that there wa no-one else for over a mile ahead when I did it.

When I was younger and commuted upmand down that road on a fast motorbike I’d do similar if it was properly empty. Illegal, yes, but neither dangerous nor stupid.

fred246

I remember speaking to a German doctor who used to work for the ambulance service. He was telling me of an incident on the autobahn where a car full of teenagers had left the road and hit a bridge. The heads had come off and they couldn't tell which head belonged to which body. It's pretty obvious that the faster you are going the more likely you are to die. It's not always the car occupants. They can hit pedestrians or cyclists. Even on motorways people can be driving the wrong way. I remember a guy on a previous forum saying speed had never killed anyone. I offered to hit him with my car at 10mph and then try it at 100mph and see if he could tell a difference. He didn't take me up. As with many crimes technology will be the answer. Hopefully it won't be long before all cars will be tracked. So many lives will be saved.

esuhl

forgotmyname wrote: »

How many twisty narrow lanes are there with a national speed limit of 60mph yet many dual carriageways with a 40mph or 50mph limit?

So its safer to drive at 60mph on a twisty narrow lane then doing 60 on a dual carriageway?

No. The national speed limit isn't an invitation to drive at such speeds! In many cases, you'd be arrested for dangerous driving!

Speed limits are there for a reason. They've been deliberately introduced because speeding drivers have caused problems.

Everyone thinks they're a better driver than average, but road laws need to take account of people who aren't good drivers.

Yes it can be frustrating, but it's better for everyone to try to make our roads less dangerous. Speeding rarely saves you more than a minute or two anyway.

John_G_Jones

fred246 wrote: »

I remember speaking to a German doctor who used to work for the ambulance service. He was telling me of an incident on the autobahn where a car full of teenagers had left the road and hit a bridge. The heads had come off and they couldn't tell which head belonged to which body. It's pretty obvious that the faster you are going the more likely you are to die.

It is not obvious at all, but I suppose if you want to debate on facts you just made up then there’s little point continuing.

There are so many other factors involved that making a blanket assertion like yours is just pointless. I am safer doing 198mph (my car’s listed top speed) on that section of M11 that I mentioned above, on that hypothetical clear, bright summer evening than I would be doing 40mph on the way out of my street on a recent icy morning.

VFR

forgotmyname wrote: »

Speed limits are set for safety? Are you sure?

How many twisty narrow lanes are there with a national speed limit of 60mph yet many dual carriageways with a 40mph or 50mph limit?

So its safer to drive at 60mph on a twisty narrow lane then doing 60 on a dual carriageway?

Local dual carriageway had a 70mph limit, 2 accidents where they must have been double that and speed cameras appear. Then a while late the speed limit gets dropped to 50mph. WHY?

Another road was 40mph, cameras installed and very few tickets issued, then they drop the limit to 30mph. WHY? No accidents to blame on that one.

Spot on & this was my question to Staffordshire council when I asked if the limit could be reduced on the country lane we live on as the limit on the A road it joins is 40/50 for the most part with cameras.
Country lanes often have no pavements, horses and other animals, pedestrians walking (or trying to) and cars in the middle of the road trying to avoid the potholes / farm vehicles.

consumers_revenge

Gloomendoom wrote: »

I wouldn't be surprised if speed limits are broken a million times a day in the UK, probably more.

What proportion of those offences result in anything bad happening?

I'm not saying I agree with every limit. Some roads limits are stupid but if you decide to break the law its your choice and you can't complain if you caught.

It's like when the police were videoing drivers jumping red lights at railway crossings. When one driver who jumped it was show the video and offered a fine or a course he just said give me the fine, I won't learn anything from getting the course.

Another Darwin prime example.

Mercdriver

martinthebandit wrote: »

....and the funding for the police force/safety partnership comes from........



.......the local authority and any income that a police force/safety partnership generates reduces £ for £ the funding the local authority provides the following year.

So yes the money does not go directly to the local authority, but it gets there in the end.

Ha ha you should be a politician, trying to change the facts to fit your views.

Only a certain amount of money comes from the precept that is part of your council tax to the police. It does not come from the local authority, it does not go to the local authority. It comes from your pocket when you pay the council tax. The rest comes from central funds.

Money you pay to safety partnerships for courses do not go anywhere near the local authority which is what you were stating.

charlotte1994

I can't stand speeding, I never do it on purpose. I ride a motorcycle and I will often get business men in their posh car tailgaiting me. How dare I go 30 in 30 zone?!


Some hardly speed down then whizz past me, one false move and they could hit me and kill me. I hate speeders. The problem is that more often than not they hurt/kill someone else when they crash but they'll be fine.


I think the only time it is ok to speed is when there is an absolute emergency, the person in your car is dying and you're on the way to the hospital, it's quicker than waiting for an ambulance.

martinthebandit

Mercdriver wrote: »

Money you pay to safety partnerships for courses do not go anywhere near the local authority which is what you were stating.

....and you think I should be a politician?

The safety partnership in my area is jointly funded by the police, fire service and local authority. Both the Police and Fire Service are funded in part by the local authority and it could be argued that the money that comes from central government to top up the funding for both the police and fire service is sliced of the top of the council grant.

The income the speed awareness courses generate means that the funding that is required from the local authority, police and fire is reduced therefore the local authority profits from the courses.

Norman_Castle

forgotmyname wrote: »

Speed limits are set for safety? Are you sure?

How many twisty narrow lanes are there with a national speed limit of 60mph yet many dual carriageways with a 40mph or 50mph limit?

So its safer to drive at 60mph on a twisty narrow lane then doing 60 on a dual carriageway?

Local dual carriageway had a 70mph limit, 2 accidents where they must have been [doing?] double that and speed cameras appear. Then a while late the speed limit gets dropped to 50mph. WHY? Its unlikely these two accidents were the only speeders on this road. Are you happy using a local road which others are dangerously using as a 140mph playground?

Another road was 40mph, cameras installed and very few tickets issued, then they drop the limit to 30mph. WHY? No accidents to blame on that one.

I expect all roads are initially nsl but then get adjusted downwards for safety. Motorists are trusted to judge roads accordingly and normally no competent motorist would consider 60mph on narrow lanes safe but many will drive at 60 or 70 on urban dual carriageways or through potentially dangerous junctions without recognising the risks hence the lower limits.


Over the last few years two roads local to me have had their speeds reduced, one a 70mph, 2 mile section of dual carriageway reduced to 50mph and an adjacent 2 mile nsl country road, not urbanised as it runs through a nature reserve, reduced to 40/30. Both of these roads were early destinations when a new bike was bought. Dual carriageway to see how fast it goes and the country road to throw it into some bends. Both roads were playgrounds for motorists, including me. Any potential time lost by driving at the new limits is tiny and irrelevant. Both roads now feel safer when driven on and much safer for the walkers, cyclists and horse riders crossing them.