Speeding not a taboo

pblakeney

Dinyull wrote:

Think a lot has to do with how safe cars are nowadays, the fear factor isn't there of binning it at 70.

As part of the speeding course they could be taken to accident scenes to see how stupid that opinion is. Probably not practical but people need taught. Late night TV footage?

briantrumpet

PBlakeney wrote:

Dinyull wrote:

Think a lot has to do with how safe cars are nowadays, the fear factor isn't there of binning it at 70.

As part of the speeding course they could be taken to accident scenes to see how stupid that opinion is. Probably not practical but people need taught. Late night TV footage?

Given how many accidents there are on Devon roads (especially near Exeter on the M5/A38/A380 stretch), it's a testament to the improved 'safety' that so few people die - what with that perception, and the perception that there aren't really harsh penalties for careless driving (even when causing death), I am quite sure that drivers' mentality is shifting towards 'dodgem driving': it's not 'best practice', just 'what you can get away with'. It's not conscious decisions, in most cases.

dinyull

Another thing, bad driving in general isn't seen of as a taboo. Drink driving too.

Everyone will know of someone who has driven home after 2 or 3 pints. Everyone. And if you called someone out on it your made to feel like an absolute c*nt.

Driving is seen as a right and not a privilege.

pblakeney

briantrumpet wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Dinyull wrote:

Think a lot has to do with how safe cars are nowadays, the fear factor isn't there of binning it at 70.

As part of the speeding course they could be taken to accident scenes to see how stupid that opinion is. Probably not practical but people need taught. Late night TV footage?

Given how many accidents there are on Devon roads (especially near Exeter on the M5/A38/A380 stretch), it's a testament to the improved 'safety' that so few people die - what with that perception, and the perception that there aren't really harsh penalties for careless driving (even when causing death), I am quite sure that drivers' mentality is shifting towards 'dodgem driving': it's not 'best practice', just 'what you can get away with'. It's not conscious decisions, in most cases.

That bit in bold makes it worse in my opinion.

mfin

PBlakeney wrote:

A thread for the OP seeking justification for his/her actions.

Well, you've made that up. I don't knowingly speed ever, I didn't say that I did. You've just made a false assumption.

I have no problem with speed limits most of the time either, there are some places where they are unnecessarily low though. Like it or not, there's also plenty of people who do adhere to low speed limits but not concentrate, using it as a time to ruffle through glove boxes or play with the stereo etc. There's an argument that the limits create a subsection of people who don't concentrate. I've seen plenty of drivers do this on known roads close to me when I'm a passenger.

People can say that "people should do this" and "people should never do that" as much as they like, it doesn't change the way people behave. Daily Mail reading old and square people tend to forget this (not that I am saying you are one!).

I just abide by the speed limits myself, it doesn't mean I can't observe when I think one is over zealous.

haydenm

Dinyull wrote:

Another thing, bad driving in general isn't seen of as a taboo. Drink driving too.

Everyone will know of someone who has driven home after 2 or 3 pints. Everyone. And if you called someone out on it your made to feel like an absolute c*nt.

Driving is seen as a right and not a privilege.

I know people who has but its a taboo to me. I once had a physical fight with a friend who wouldn't surrender his keys but could barely walk in a straight line, the saddest part is he was killed by a drunk driver the next summer

rolf_f

mfin wrote:

There's an argument that the limits create a subsection of people who don't concentrate. I've seen plenty of drivers do this on known roads close to me when I'm a passenger.

Is this an argument backed up by any real evidence? You might see people not concentrating at 30mph but do you know that they'd be concentrating any more at 40mph? And they'd need to concentrate disproportionately more at that speed just to maintain the same level of safety (or lack of safety!).

pblakeney

mfin wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

A thread for the OP seeking justification for his/her actions.

Well, you've made that up. I don't knowingly speed ever, I didn't say that I did. You've just made a false assumption.

I have no problem with speed limits most of the time either, there are some places where they are unnecessarily low though. Like it or not, there's also plenty of people who do adhere to low speed limits but not concentrate, using it as a time to ruffle through glove boxes or play with the stereo etc. There's an argument that the limits create a subsection of people who don't concentrate. I've seen plenty of drivers do this on known roads close to me when I'm a passenger.

People can say that "people should do this" and "people should never do that" as much as they like, it doesn't change the way people behave. Daily Mail reading old and square people tend to forget this (not that I am saying you are one!).

I just abide by the speed limits myself, it doesn't mean I can't observe when I think one is over zealous.

As you have given quite a few examples of bad driving I assumed they were based on personal experience. Assumptions are often wrong, but if so, why start the thread?
Limits are set for a reason, you may not know the reason but doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

mfin

Rolf F wrote:

mfin wrote:

There's an argument that the limits create a subsection of people who don't concentrate. I've seen plenty of drivers do this on known roads close to me when I'm a passenger.

Is this an argument backed up by any real evidence? You might see people not concentrating at 30mph but do you know that they'd be concentrating any more at 40mph? And they'd need to concentrate disproportionately more at that speed just to maintain the same level of safety (or lack of safety!).

Well, I thought it was as I've seen it plenty of times and plenty of people admit this is what they do as an argument against overly low speed limits on some stretches of road.

mfin

PBlakeney wrote:

mfin wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

A thread for the OP seeking justification for his/her actions.

Well, you've made that up. I don't knowingly speed ever, I didn't say that I did. You've just made a false assumption.

I have no problem with speed limits most of the time either, there are some places where they are unnecessarily low though. Like it or not, there's also plenty of people who do adhere to low speed limits but not concentrate, using it as a time to ruffle through glove boxes or play with the stereo etc. There's an argument that the limits create a subsection of people who don't concentrate. I've seen plenty of drivers do this on known roads close to me when I'm a passenger.

People can say that "people should do this" and "people should never do that" as much as they like, it doesn't change the way people behave. Daily Mail reading old and square people tend to forget this (not that I am saying you are one!).

I just abide by the speed limits myself, it doesn't mean I can't observe when I think one is over zealous.

As you have given quite a few examples of bad driving I assumed they were based on personal experience. Assumptions are often wrong, but if so, why start the thread?
Limits are set for a reason, you may not know the reason but doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

Why start the thread? Umm, because I thought it might interest people, something to chat about (and people are).

Oh, I don't think the reasons for low speed limits on some roads that I know inside out would possibly be so obscure for me not to have thought of them.

keef66

Fenix wrote:

Roll on the self driving cars - at least you know they won't be justifying speeding as its late at night and obviously there are fewer cyclists or pedestrians around.

Was going to say the very same thing. Take the decisions out of the hands of joe public, who then becomes a mere passenger. Free to drink coffee, apply makeup, take a few selfies, scroll through music, eat breakfast, take off a jumper, retrieve the phone from the passenger footwell or a bag from the back seat, Facetime their relatives etc without endangering anyone.

These are all things I've seen people trying to do while driving. Some of them scared me sh1tless.

pblakeney

mfin wrote:

Why start the thread? Umm, because I thought it might interest people, something to chat about (and people are).

Oh, I don't think the reasons for low speed limits on some roads that I know inside out would possibly be so obscure for me not to have thought of them.

Oh yes there is...

kingstongraham

Fenix wrote:

Roll on the self driving cars - at least you know they won't be justifying speeding as its late at night and obviously there are fewer cyclists or pedestrians around.

Will it be seen as the right of a car owner to override the "obey speed limits" setting?

haydenm

PBlakeney wrote:

Limits are set for a reason, you may not know the reason but doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

Aren't the limits partly based on 1970s stopping distances? I could drive faster than the average driver because I have excellent reactions and a car with good brakes but the limit caters for the lowest common denominator. Not saying I should be allowed though, as pointed out before, hitting someone at 40 rather than 30 makes a huge difference to their chances. That and it would be totally unworkable for such excellent drivers as me to have a special licence to speed...

keef66

KingstonGraham wrote:

Fenix wrote:

Roll on the self driving cars - at least you know they won't be justifying speeding as its late at night and obviously there are fewer cyclists or pedestrians around.

Will it be seen as the right of a car owner to override the "obey speed limits" setting?

They won't be able to, and anyway, people might not own them. Just summon one using the app. and tell it where you want to go. No manual intervention apart from the operation of the doors.

If people start hacking them to speed or drive manually then that's no different from hijack and punishable by law. The things will obviously have retinal scanners and be linked 24-7 to DVLA so they'll know who the felon is and withdraw their right to travel.

Next time they try to get in a car they'll get "unexpected item in the bagging area" and have to walk to Burger King

dinyull

HaydenM wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Limits are set for a reason, you may not know the reason but doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

Aren't the limits partly based on 1970s stopping distances? I could drive faster than the average driver because I have excellent reactions and a car with good brakes but the limit caters for the lowest common denominator. Not saying I should be allowed though, as pointed out before, hitting someone at 40 rather than 30 makes a huge difference to their chances. That and it would be totally unworkable for such excellent drivers as me to have a special licence to speed...

Limits, no.

Stopping distances, yes.

haydenm

Dinyull wrote:

HaydenM wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Limits are set for a reason, you may not know the reason but doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

Aren't the limits partly based on 1970s stopping distances? I could drive faster than the average driver because I have excellent reactions and a car with good brakes but the limit caters for the lowest common denominator. Not saying I should be allowed though, as pointed out before, hitting someone at 40 rather than 30 makes a huge difference to their chances. That and it would be totally unworkable for such excellent drivers as me to have a special licence to speed...

Limits, no.

Stopping distances, yes.

You'd have thought the two might be linked hey...

Obviously the hitting people part has an influence but with such ninja like reactions I'd still be able to stop. I'm a great driver, just like everyone else thinks they are

keef66

HaydenM wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Limits are set for a reason, you may not know the reason but doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

Aren't the limits partly based on 1970s stopping distances? I could drive faster than the average driver because I have excellent reactions and a car with good brakes but the limit caters for the lowest common denominator. Not saying I should be allowed though, as pointed out before, hitting someone at 40 rather than 30 makes a huge difference to their chances. That and it would be totally unworkable for such excellent drivers as me to have a special licence to speed...

Good point. I once nearly hit the car in front when a fast moving dual carriageway suddenly became a car park for reasons I never discovered. I braked so hard the ABS kicked in even though the road was bone dry, and I came to a stop about a foot from the car in front. The traffic then suddenly set off again, just as the multiple pile-up happened behind me, shunting me down the now empty road. Clearly a lot of other drivers either didn't have ABS, or hadn't spotted the slowing traffic as soon as I did. I think the car full of Thames Valley cops just to my left was one of the few who also avoided hitting the car in front; quite reassuring to see them all leap out, don hi-viz gear and start running around helping people exchange details and making sure nobody was hurt.
So you might have a brand new car with all the latest technology and the reflexes of Lewis Hamilton, but if the bloke behind you in the 1997 pickup with 3 dodgy tyres is playing Candy Crush on his phone, there's going to be a mismatch in stopping distances. Ditto recently qualified young drivers who are trying to impress their mates but who don't yet have the speed awareness or hazard perception necessary to drive safely.

haydenm

keef66 wrote:

Fenix wrote:

Roll on the self driving cars - at least you know they won't be justifying speeding as its late at night and obviously there are fewer cyclists or pedestrians around.

Was going to say the very same thing. Take the decisions out of the hands of joe public, who then becomes a mere passenger. Free to drink coffee, apply makeup, take a few selfies, scroll through music, eat breakfast, take off a jumper, retrieve the phone from the passenger footwell or a bag from the back seat, Facetime their relatives etc without endangering anyone.

These are all things I've seen people trying to do while driving. Some of them scared me sh1tless.

Absolutely terrifying.

In a way I'm very much looking forward to doing work miles without driving but if they make me work on my laptop during that time I'll hate it. Also looking forward to it driving me home when I'm drunk. Do we think that we will legally be able to have a kip or operate it drunk though? I had presumed the laws wouldn't keep up and there won't be any of the tempting benefits. There could be a flashing light on the top to signify that it's on self drive mode or something

Might destroy itself on all the private roads I drive though

mfin

Funny how people think of driverless cars, the coming early generations of course you won't be able to use drunk, but once there are no controls for you to operate of course you'll be able to. Plus, by then we'll all be wearing silver spandex all in ones with deely boppers and most of this transport will take the form of air travel. After that or we will rarely travel anywhere and anywhere we want to be will be a vr simulation.

slowbike

The problem with speed limits is that they can be a bit arbitrary. Especially country roads where the limits fluctuate from 30-60. There'll be a reason behind it - the local council will have been approached and they'll look into it -then put the wheels in motion if they think it's a good idea - but the problem is, the limits are not subjective - they catch all - sun, rain, snow, ice/tyre type - the limit stays the same. School in, school out - the limit is static - so that 30 limit past the school is a good idea - and in some instances is still too fast - but at midnight when you're the only vehicle on the road - you could do more than 30 quite happily and not be a danger to anyone - not that you should, because there just might be someone there expecting you to be doing a max 30 - giving them time to cross the road, turn in/out of the junction or whatever.

Then there's the ever decreasing speed limits - a road that I've been traveling on for 30+ years has suddenly gone from de-limit to 40 ... along a huge stretch - granted, there are some junctions including the turn in for a private school - but there's no reason to limit it to 40 all the way through - I suspect it's a condition of a 40 - you can't do 40 for a short stretch, then up it to 60, then back down again - not allowed. So for the hour or so at the ends of each day when that stretch is busy and you can't do more than 40 - we'll limit the whole lot to 40 - no matter what conditions/time of day/week of the year.

It would be nice to allow drivers to use their common sense - but we know common sense isn't that common - everyone has a differing opinion on what is sensible anyway.

Quite frankly, I'm looking forward to driverless cars now anyway - there are too many inconsiderate drivers - either through a deliberate act or not paying attention. You read things like this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-dorset-42349454 and wonder just WHY ... and What can we do to ensure all the little monsters enjoy their next birthday?

pblakeney

"The driver of the car, a woman in her 20s, was uninjured." - This being reported in every similar report is a waste of reporting. As much a waste as me getting annoyed by it.

bikes`n`guns

Speed limits are outdated and the zealous persecution of speeders is strictly a political / economical matter.

Allow automated prosecution of a motorist who is over the speed limit is a an easier choice than pay for police to combat poor driving.

Speeding is not an unsafe practice. Driving too fast for the conditions is.

thistle_

Slowbike wrote:

The problem with speed limits is that they can be a bit arbitrary. Especially country roads where the limits fluctuate from 30-60. There'll be a reason behind it - the local council will have been approached and they'll look into it.

I think there is a system and logic behind it, but I would expect local councils will always err on the cautious side.

Around here every non-trunk, A and B road which used to be national speed limit has had it cut, sometimes from national to 30 mph. The result seems to be people just driving out of side roads in front of you without looking.

mfin

Slowbike wrote:

The problem with speed limits is that they can be a bit arbitrary. Especially country roads where the limits fluctuate from 30-60. There'll be a reason behind it - the local council will have been approached and they'll look into it -then put the wheels in motion if they think it's a good idea - but the problem is, the limits are not subjective - they catch all - sun, rain, snow, ice/tyre type - the limit stays the same. School in, school out - the limit is static - so that 30 limit past the school is a good idea - and in some instances is still too fast - but at midnight when you're the only vehicle on the road - you could do more than 30 quite happily and not be a danger to anyone - not that you should, because there just might be someone there expecting you to be doing a max 30 - giving them time to cross the road, turn in/out of the junction or whatever.

Then there's the ever decreasing speed limits - a road that I've been traveling on for 30+ years has suddenly gone from de-limit to 40 ... along a huge stretch - granted, there are some junctions including the turn in for a private school - but there's no reason to limit it to 40 all the way through - I suspect it's a condition of a 40 - you can't do 40 for a short stretch, then up it to 60, then back down again - not allowed. So for the hour or so at the ends of each day when that stretch is busy and you can't do more than 40 - we'll limit the whole lot to 40 - no matter what conditions/time of day/week of the year.

It would be nice to allow drivers to use their common sense - but we know common sense isn't that common - everyone has a differing opinion on what is sensible anyway.

Quite frankly, I'm looking forward to driverless cars now anyway - there are too many inconsiderate drivers - either through a deliberate act or not paying attention. You read things like this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-dorset-42349454 and wonder just WHY ... and What can we do to ensure all the little monsters enjoy their next birthday?

Good post.

mouth

Bikes`n`guns wrote:

Allow automated prosecution of a motorist who is over the speed limit is a an easier choice than pay for police to combat poor driving.

I'm an advocate of constant assessment, along with a compulsory medical for all categories. I passed my car test and went on my merry for a number of years. I only realised how bad of a driver I was when I became a bus driver. We (as do HGV) undergo compulsory training on a periodical basis, as well as the company (voluntarily ie there is no legal mandate for them to do it) constantly assessing us in real life situations. It's normal for one of the training team to board my service with the strict intention of making an assessment. Not on me, but I've known a trainer to literally pull a driver over and banish him/her from the seat. After any customer complaints, expect a ride. After a collision - blameworthy or otherwise - expect a ride. After returning to work from a lengthy sickness, you report to training school first.

Some of my colleagues get all heated up about it - one even refused to drive the bus when a trainer turned up for a spot assessment, he's no longer employed - but for me you should want them to come. If I'm doing something wrong, or could be doing something better, I want to know about it so I can correct myself.

There's no reason why at least some of this can't be applied to all categories of license. Who'd pay for it? Well, if you want a license..................

cougie

There's the problem - people want to be able to drive but if you introduced retests they'd be outraged and kick up a fuss. No party would want to introduce that in their manifesto.

mfin

There should be compulsory retests for the old though, the bulk of people become not really fit to drive at some point. I would think something like a retest at 65 then once every 5 or 10 years after that would at least help. It wouldn't have to be the full test just a smaller assessment.

Another thing that should happen is all cars should have official noise figures, and tested against it on the spot. Some way of stopping little sh1ts putting noisy exhausts on their hatchbacks and thrashing them around thinking they're in fast and furious. Anyone who's ever lived right next to a road in a town or city will know why.

kingstongraham

None of these limits are kept secret though, are they? If you aren't a skilled enough driver to keep below them, then why are you driving?

slowbike

Perhaps retests should be phased in.

I think there's good evidence that after the age of retirement - you should have periodic checks - whilst it is your independence, you're not the best person to decide if you're safe to drive or not.
There's little you could argue about someone with points needing a check - I see no reason for not doing them - they've been caught for misdemeanors - so why not have a driving check?

A check doesn't have to be the same as a test - it could be as simple as a "lesson" from a registered driving instructor with guidance on what needs brushing up on. Keep it a positive experience. If someone is that bad then the DI can refer them to an examiner.

Would I want to be retested? No, of course not - but I know I've got some bad habits - but I may have some that I dont know about - and that's more dangerous.