Why is speeding socially acceptable?

motorguy

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'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.

So inappropriate speed then? If people want to drive like a nut then there will be accidents.

I would rather be sitting beside Lewis Hamilton at 150MPH than some old biddy doing 40MPH whilst holding on to the steering wheel for grim death.

motorguy

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'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.

I would say that making bizarre statements like that suggests you dont get the difference between driving at speed and driving at an inappropriate speed.

motorguy

Retrogamer wrote: »

It always amazes me how many drivers will complain about cyclists going through red lights with quotes like "cyclists should obey the law" whilst simultaneously complaining about speed cameras and ignoring the fact that most motorists break the speed limit.

Erm, because a cyclist going through a red light means hes driving in to traffic that has a green light and has a right of way? Some idiot cyclist bumbling through a red light to save himself a few seconds in to the path of a lorry doesnt sound like the brightest idea in the world?

I've no complaint about speed cameras when they are placed for road safety. I do however object to them being placed purely to earn revenue.

motorguy

agrinnall wrote: »

But that isn't the point that was being made in the post that you quoted, you are confusing two different things. Yes, you may be safer in the former situation than in the latter, but if you do crash in both scenarios then the outcome will be exponentially worse at 198mph than at 40mph, a simple calculation of kinetic energy tells you that.

Both are examples of inappropriate speed, yet you will get the 45MPH Freddys who will be "outraged" at being overtaken in a 60 or 70 or if someone advocates a higher than 70MPH speed limit, yet will quite happily maintain that speed irrespective of road conditions or the prevailing speed limit.... :eek:

Jackmydad

What is needed is not just speed limits, but properly trained drivers who can properly assess the correct speed for the situation combined with speed limits.
The minimal "drive around the block" test hardly prepares anyone for the reality of modern driving.
I'm pretty sure that more than half the drivers who seem to manage to nearly run you off the road every time you go out, (About 10% of the total IMO) would not pass any sort of realistic assessment of their "skills".
And yes, we all think we are "good drivers" but some more than others, are definitely fooling themselves big time.

giraffe69

One reason drivers ignore speed limits is that they are not set with any degree of common sense. In France they have had variable limits on main roads for some decades recognising that it is much more dangerous to drive quickly in fog where vision is impaired or rain/snow/ice where staying on the road is significantly more difficult.

Some of our limits are set with no common sense at all. So 20mph near a school (very reasonable) but not well outside school hours or term time. 40 mph on a dual carriageway with no visual obstructions but a theoretical 60 on a local narrow road near me when much more than 40 would brand you certifiable.

You have to have some acceptance that what you are doing is in some way reasonable and if you set limits that are ridiculously low whether to raise money or satisfy local communities who would prefer the red flag then expect to have them disregarded. For sure you will catch some and even if you had the most reasonable and sensible limits you would have some ignoring them. Concentrate on having realistic and reasonable limits and then they might be easier to enforce.

Norman_Castle

Jackmydad wrote: »

What is needed is not just speed limits, but properly trained drivers who can properly assess the correct speed for the situation combined with speed limits.
The minimal "drive around the block" test hardly prepares anyone for the reality of modern driving.

If drivers were capable of properly assessing speeds limits wouldn't be needed. Its the attitude towards speeding that is wrong. I live on a busy 30mph road which most drivers drive at closer to 40. despite numerous junctions, crossings and a school entrance 40mph cars are often overtaken despite the numerous reasons not to. I've just walked the 2/10ths of a mile to the post office and witnessed a car driving that short distance from a small roundabout hit close to 60 before turning into a junction opposite where I live. No reason to reach that speed and certainly dangerous due to passing a side road, a crossroad, a pedestrian crossing and a school entrance.
The last people I would ask about increasing speed limits are motorists as many, while driving, are very ignorant and selfish with their regard for where they are driving.

almillar

It's even legal to have Google Maps/Waze etc. have speed cameras on the map to ensure you can drive above the limit when you wish knowing you'll be warned as you approach a camera.

You don't need to do that, and they aren't doing anything dodgy - fixed speed cameras have signs on the road warning you about them! And people still complain about getting flashed!

There's a temporary 30mph stretch for a mile

People REALLY don't pay attention to temporary speed limits!

It's pretty obvious that the faster you are going the more likely you are to die.

Take it you never fly, then? How are motorways both the fastest, and safest, roads in the UK? I think you missed the word 'potentially'.

Johno100

EssexExile wrote: »

If we are going to let motorists decide how fast is appropriate then the driving test is going to have to be a lot harder.

That is how speed limits used to be set by reference to the 85th percentile.

DfT Circular 01/2006 didn't win any literary awards and it's not widely read outside council highways departments. It's an advisory note circulated by the Department for Transport, so it didn't follow any debate in Parliament and its issue wasn't marked in the press. And why should it? It's the latest in a series of similar documents, replacing Circular Roads 01/93, which said many of the same things in roughly the same terms. It offers updated advice on speed limits in light of changes that have happened since 1993. It didn't really change anything.

It also changed everything. Many countries set speed limits using the "85th percentile", an idea that means that the top speed of 85% of the vehicles on a road should be considered legal. Using it as a basis for a speed limit has clear benefits: the limit has been set by popular opinion of drivers, so it should be based on the judgement and experience of a broad cross-section of the motoring public, and it ends up requiring little enforcement action as the vast majority of drivers will naturally comply with it.

Until 2006, the UK was in the 85th percentile club along with many other developed countries. DfT Circular 01/2006 changed that, instead requiring that "mean speeds should be used as the basis for determining local speed limits". The mean speed is not the same as the 85th percentile — in fact it can be quite different, and is almost certain to be lower.

https://www.roads.org.uk/articles/limit/numbers-game

MEM62

EssexExile wrote: »

It's easier, and probably more effective, to put up a big red circle with a number in it than sign telling drivers to drive better.

Well that ain't working is it?

If you want effective you need more officers out there dealing with the sort of idiotic driving that cameras can't but I doubt that there is the political will to do it.