Top speed

quote:

---

Originally posted by oldie:
Its bad enough when a miserable old sod like me dies in a car accident but when young people under twenty and two under four years old die ,well thats more than just tragic,

---

I understand where you're coming from but I must disagree. Age doesn't come into it. It's all bloody awful and an old grandad (or similar) is just as tragic a loss and someone younger.

I don't understand Steve's question - what factor is speeding? Sorry if I'm being thick. We seem to be focused on speed limits (some of which are too high and some too low) and if you can 'justify' how fast you're going. But what it boils down to is that the faster you go the less room for error you have. Inattention is now quoted as the most significant cause of accidents but does that mean speed is not significant?

We had a bad one round here a couple of months back, Mother and two children. She pulled out of a lay by into the path of an oncoming car overtaking slower traffic and traveling in excess of 80mph. Who's fault was that, and can the closing speed of the two cars be ruled out as a contributing factor? The survuving driver, who walked away with a sprained wrist will doublless argue that you need to shift to overtake safely and she put him in an impossible position. Very logical on paper. However, there are now three new graves in the church yard opposite which really shouldn't be there. Actually there are four - a young biker knocked down last year and killed by someone doing 50 in a 30 limit. But hey, it was late, the road was deserted and driving conditions were good. I guess the biker was just unlucky huh?

Cheers

Harry

quote:

---

Originally posted by HTK:
I don't understand Steve's question - what factor is speeding?

---

The point I (and others) have been making is that the speed limit isn't a good guide to a safe speed to drive at. Safe speed relates to conditions, traffic, other roads users etc - the speed limits are irrelevant as far as safety is concerned.

There are lots of people about that think it's the speed limit always tells them the speed that it's safe to drive at, but it doesn't. It tells them the maximum speed that it's legal to drive at - nothing more.

Yeah. Right. Couldn't agree more.

Cheers

Harry

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve G:
There are lots of people about that think it's the speed limit always tells them the speed that it's safe to drive at, but it doesn't. It tells them the maximum speed that it's legal to drive at - nothing more.

---

Yup, the speed limit is just that, a limit not a target to be reached.

But as a limit it would suggest that those who exceed it (including myself on occaisions) think they know better than the law

Tom

Actively enjoying it all

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tom Alves:
But as a limit it would suggest that those who exceed it (including myself on occaisions) think they know better than the law

---

Depends if the law is trying to state the speed limit is a safe speed or just the legal maximum.

The law believes that the speeds above legal maximum limit(60mph on ordainary roads and 70 mph on dual carriage ways and motorways) should be considered dangerous. You may disagree but that's for you to argue with the judge. Unless every section of road is to be considered on its merits and in all conditions then a countrywide norm is the most likely to work especially as it's fairly easy to remember.

Or are you arguing legal limits ought to be lower than they are?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tom Alves:
The law believes that the speeds above legal maximum limit(60mph on ordainary roads and 70 mph on dual carriage ways and motorways) should be considered dangerous. You may disagree but that's for you to argue with the judge.

---

I wouldn't argue with the judge (he probably drives a Rover 75) but I wouldn't necessarily agree with him.

I certainly disagree that every case of exceeding 60mph on a single-carriageway NSL road or 70mph on a motorway is dangerous. I don't think they actually think that either, otherwise everytime a police or ambulance driver exceeds the speed limit they should be charged for dangerous driving.

quote:

---

Or are you arguing legal limits ought to be lower than they are?

---

In some cases yes.

This is where the problems start. We know better than the law, so do we ignore it when it suits us or defer to it along with everyone else

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tom Alves:
This is where the problems start. We know better than the law, so do we ignore it when it suits us or defer to it along with everyone else

---

As far as speeding is concerned then there are areas (e.g. motorways) where it looks like more people exceed the speed limit than stick to it.

Also as I never speed in built up areas (except on my bicycle!) I often seem to be the only person not breaking the speed limit - so I'd say that the majority, perhaps the vast majority, probably speed given the chance.

quote:

---

This is where the problems start. We know better than the law, so do we ignore it when it suits us or defer to it along with everyone else

---

The law, in this case, is an ass. It's also enforcing arbitrary rules rather than something for which there is a moral basis.

I'd like to see the people who dawdle along A roads at 30-45mph with 20 or 30 cars in a queue behind taken off the road. They're dangerous and anti-social. (Just this afternoon been into Banbury and got caught both ways.) This seems to be something that robot enforcement could manage. You get spotted then you get to retake your driving test. No fines or other sanctions. Just prove you can drive. IIRC one of the requirements is keeping up with traffic, subject to speed limits.

Paul

Just checked in my office and all 7 of the folks in today have done at least 90mph on the motorway.

I was quite surprised to find that only 3 admitted to speeds over 100mph though.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paul Ranson:
I'd like to see the people who dawdle along A roads at 30-45mph with 20 or 30 cars in a queue behind taken off the road. They're dangerous and anti-social.

---

I think it can also be an offence. There was a recent case in Scotland were an old woman was charged with careless driving after a huge tailback built up behind her while she drove at a maximum of 40mph on a 60mph rural A-road, slowing to as low as 10mph for the corners.

That's the only such case I've ever heard of though, otherwise every caravan owner would surely be in jail.

When I tow the racing car on A roads I'm sure I hold people up. OTOH I'm not supposed to go over 50mph and I do break that limit, it's just acceleration and hills that cause a problem. At least the cameras can't tell. And then quite often I have an illegible scribble for a number plate...

Caravans, horse boxes, other big trailers, trucks, all have a reason to travel at a lower than normal average speed. It's the incompetent who have no excuse I want to test.

Paul

I'm getting the feeling here that the subtext is

quote:

---

The law shouldn't apply to us because it's stupid but should apply to those that cause us inconvenience or danger

---

Hmm, so how does that work then?

Tom
feeling self righteous

The only traffic law that's applied is speed limit enforcement. Why's that then? Are you seriously suggesting that dangerous and arguably illegal behaviour should be tolerated because laws that criminalise safe behaviour are being challenged?

FWIW finding a 'safe place to pull over' is easier said than done. There isn't one for a car-trailer between here and near the M40 for instance. Anyway given I generally cruise at 60 I don't consider myself 'slow moving', just occasionally a bit sluggish.

Paul

From a D of T document.

Top 10 contributory factors in accidents:

1) Inattention - 25.8%
2) Failure to judge another's path or speed - 22.6%
3) Looked but did not see - 19.7%
4) Behaviour: careless/reckless/thoughtless - 18.4%
5) Failed to look - 16.3%
6) Lack of judgement of own path - 13.7%
7) Excessive speed - 12.5%
8) Pedestrian walked out (pedestrian's fault) - 10.9%
9) Poor turn/manoeuvre - 8.4%
10) Slippery road - 8.2%

Figures from Avon and Somerset police (the only force in the UK to make the distinction) reveal that 70% of the "excessive speed" accidents occur within the speed limit.

This would suggest that speeding is therefore only a contributory factor in 3.75% of accidents on UK roads.

Steve

No one's arguing with that fact that speed is only a small contributory factor. What's your point?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tom Alves:
No one's arguing with that fact that speed is only a small contributory factor.

---

Are you sure about that?

quote:

---

What's your point?

---

Why are the government and police having such a harsh and highly publicised crackdown on something that is such a small factor?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve G:
Are you sure about that?

---

Fairly, certainly not for a few pages

quote:

---

Why are the government and police having such a harsh and highly publicised crackdown on something that is such a small factor?

---

Are they? I hadn't noticed.

Let's face it Steve. You'll continue to speed on the motorway and where you believe it is safe to do so and nothing anyone here says is going to stop you, is it?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tom Alves:
Let's face it Steve. You'll continue to speed on the motorway and where you believe it is safe to do so and nothing anyone here says is going to stop you, is it?

---

I'll continue to drive at a speed I judge to be safe, even if that's lower than the speed limit.

[This message was edited by Steve G on Fri 28 May 2004 at 7:22.]

I was flicking through the channels last night and there was one of those police documentary things on. A policeman pulls out behind a stolen Mondeo and proceeds to chase it through an urban area.

At one point both the Mondeo and the police car are at 90mph+ along a fairly busy street. Policeman said "what kind of person would risk driving here at this speed"? Er - you...

Fair enough he was chasing a criminal but the guy in the Mondeo wasn't driving dangerously until the police car started chasing him and I wasn't convinced that the crime was severe enough for the police to have taken the risks they did (both to themselves and other road users).

Ironically the chap (who'd just been released for prison) was charged with burglary (he'd stolen the car keys during the break-in) and car theft, but apparently not with any driving offences. Going by current figures (10,000 burglars in jail but 15,000 in jail for motoring offences) they'd have got a better sentence (he only got 9 months despite considerable previous) charging him with speeding etc...

Another driver, a white-van man, was seen overtaking twice (including flashing his lights at cars to get out of his way) over double white lines on a road that was supposed to be the 4th most dangerous in the uk. 3 points and a £60 fine.

Very interesting thread.

Having passed both the IAM car and bike test and been an observer for the local car group for several years, i'd like to make a few comments.

The IAM viewpoint on speed limits (as its been explained to me) is that 30/40/50's must be stuck to rigidly (assuming its safe to do those speeds) and National speed limits adhered to, unless for an overtake, its safer to exceed the limit to mimimise the time spent in the 'danger zone'. Part of what the IAM look for is to 'make progress' which in practice means if the vehicle in front is travelling at 55 in a 60 limit, you should endeavour to overtake at the earliest opportunity. If this means doing 75/80 to get by, then this is safer than passing at 60. As soon as you are past however you would be expected to drop to 60. If the vehicle in front is doing the speed limit, you would be expected to keep a safe distance and not attempt an overtake. This is a particular style of driving that demands concentration and acute observation.

I have observed many drivers ranging in age from 20 to 70 and without exception, not one of them has been disciplined about sticking to speed limits in built up (dangerous) areas. Excess speed here is normally balanced by a lack of speed in national speed limits where it is safe to be doing the speed limit. I am constantly amazed at how unaware drivers are of approaching hazards through a lack of observational skills. How many of us are guilty of driving on autopilot? It is this that causes road accidents and not speed per se.

A more pertinant point perhaps is that not one of the drivers I have observed on behalf of the IAM has been a 'speed merchant' - they don't see the requirement for any further training.

My own point of view on speeding is that in National Speed limits (away from the hazards inherent in built up areas), I will drive to whatever limit is imposed by: how switched on I am, the weather, road and traffic conditions, the vehicle I am driving/riding, the view ahead and approaching hazards, and not by some arbitary figure set by govt/councils. Sometimes this is well below the speed limit and sometimes well above, but never either dangerous or inappropriate I hope!

Its quite simple really.
All of this lot:
1) Inattention - 25.8%
2) Failure to judge another's path or speed - 22.6%
3) Looked but did not see - 19.7%
4) Behaviour: careless/reckless/thoughtless - 18.4%
5) Failed to look - 16.3%
6) Lack of judgement of own path - 13.7%
8) Pedestrian walked out (pedestrian's fault) - 10.9%
10) Slippery road - 8.2%

an accident is more likely to be avoided or, in the case of accident, serious injury avoided, when the cars are going more slowly. F
Simon