Breaking the speed limit whilst overtaking

[jcochrane]

Did you read what I put?

This training costs money, something which a lot of people don't have at the moment.

Dom

Our posts crossed. Whilst I was adding to my post to cover the points you made.

Does not have to cost that much if at all. We are back to the point about what messages should be sent out from central sources. (already discussed in the thread) Getting out driving with good drivers. That's where a lot of my experience came from. IAM, ROSPA, ADUK driving days Taking up offers from people on this Forum for drives or mentoring. Reading driving books, videos etc. etc.

The main thing is to have the desire to be safer.

[jont]

This training costs money, something which a lot of people don't have at the moment.

How does the cost of training compare to say, your insurance excess? Never mind the cost of sorting out an RTC, or paying for hospital treatment for any injuries etc etc.

[TripleS]

Unfortunately not, Dom. Many of us here feel these campaigns give out the wrong message. They subtly imply that not exceeding a speed limit is good safe driving. Which it is not, it can be downright dangerous.

(My underlining again.)

I'm talking about the everyday driver, not us though.

To clarify what I think jcochrane's point was: many of us here feel that these campaigns give out the wrong message to all drivers.

The only thing I would add to that is to suggest that not only is the wrong message being given to all drivers, but most of them are accepting it and being misled by it. For my own purposes I'm not bothered by these 'official' messages: I believe they're largely a load of cobblers so I disregard them, but I object to others being diverted from adopting a more constructive approach to their driving, which they otherwise might do.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

[Mr Cholmondeley-Warner]

This training costs money, something which a lot of people don't have at the moment.

How does the cost of training compare to say, your insurance excess? Never mind the cost of sorting out an RTC, or paying for hospital treatment for any injuries etc etc.

Or even the annual increase in premium caused by the insurers' perceived risk increase?

[jcochrane]

The only thing I would add to that is to suggest that not only is the wrong message being given to all drivers, but most of them are accepting it and being misled by it. For my own purposes I'm not bothered by these 'official' messages: I believe they're largely a load of cobblers so I disregard them, but I object to others being diverted from adopting a more constructive approach to their driving, which they otherwise might do.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

I do love the way you put things.

[TripleS]

The only thing I would add to that is to suggest that not only is the wrong message being given to all drivers, but most of them are accepting it and being misled by it. For my own purposes I'm not bothered by these 'official' messages: I believe they're largely a load of cobblers so I disregard them, but I object to others being diverted from adopting a more constructive approach to their driving, which they otherwise might do.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

I do love the way you put things.

I'm getting older and grumpier by the day......and by night too......if SWMBO isn't feeling frisky.

Edit: Today is our 49th weddiing anniversary....so I guess some slowing down is to be expected...dammit.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

[jcochrane]

The only thing I would add to that is to suggest that not only is the wrong message being given to all drivers, but most of them are accepting it and being misled by it. For my own purposes I'm not bothered by these 'official' messages: I believe they're largely a load of cobblers so I disregard them, but I object to others being diverted from adopting a more constructive approach to their driving, which they otherwise might do.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

I do love the way you put things.

I'm getting older and grumpier by the day......and by night too......if SWMBO isn't feeling frisky.

Edit: Today is our 49th weddiing anniversary....so I guess some slowing down is to be expected...dammit.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

Congratulations. I've only been married for 45 years so got some catching up to do.

[TripleS]

I do love the way you put things.

I'm getting older and grumpier by the day......and by night too......if SWMBO isn't feeling frisky.

Edit: Today is our 49th weddiing anniversary....so I guess some slowing down is to be expected...dammit.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

Congratulations. I've only been married for 45 years so got some catching up to do.

I'm sure you will in due course if you go fast enough.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

[brianhaddon]

The only thing I would add to that is to suggest that not only is the wrong message being given to all drivers, but most of them are accepting it and being misled by it. For my own purposes I'm not bothered by these 'official' messages: I believe they're largely a load of cobblers so I disregard them, but I object to others being diverted from adopting a more constructive approach to their driving, which they otherwise might do.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

I do love the way you put things.

I'm getting older and grumpier by the day......and by night too......if SWMBO isn't feeling frisky.

Edit: Today is our 49th weddiing anniversary....so I guess some slowing down is to be expected...dammit.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

Congratulations. I've only been married for 45 years so got some catching up to do.

Yes congratulations Dave. Gosh you two make me feel like a novice - I've only been married 35 years!

Now regarding these people who go up to the limit - my approach is simple. When we drive a motor car on the public highway we are charged with driving said vehicle at a speed commensurate with the conditions. The speed range we have to choose from is 0 to the maximum speed of the vehicle. However the law intervenes and reduces the ceiling of the speed range dependant on where we are driving. It doesn't alter the principle of driving at a speed commensurate with conditions it merely (legally) reduces the speed range we have to choose from.
Regards
Brian Haddon

[dth]

When we drive a motor car on the public highway we are charged with driving said vehicle at a speed commensurate with the conditions. The speed range we have to choose from is 0 to the maximum speed of the vehicle. However the law intervenes and reduces the ceiling of the speed range dependant on where we are driving. It doesn't alter the principle of driving at a speed commensurate with conditions it merely (legally) reduces the speed range we have to choose from.
Regards
Brian Haddon

When we legally drive a car on a publlc road, we are firstly charged under the terms of our driving licence, to observe the law. Safety follows on from this in terms of safe for conditions etc etc!

[dth]

I think this ties in with the Government adverts about knocking down children. The impression is that as long as you're sticking to the speed limit you're ok. If you hit a child, as long as you're not going too fast, your conscience is clear. No it's not!

Members of the general public are usually astute enough to disregard the ludicrous interpretations put on the message of this particular clip as described in this thread. They understand that the faster a car is driven, the worse will be the outcome for the pedestrian that's hit. It's not rocket science.

They sometimes need to understand the actual science behind the message but that doesn't alter their fundamental understanding of the simple facts. I have never, ever had a member of the public assert what is being suggested here and neither have any of my colleagues.

[brianhaddon]

When we drive a motor car on the public highway we are charged with driving said vehicle at a speed commensurate with the conditions. The speed range we have to choose from is 0 to the maximum speed of the vehicle. However the law intervenes and reduces the ceiling of the speed range dependant on where we are driving. It doesn't alter the principle of driving at a speed commensurate with conditions it merely (legally) reduces the speed range we have to choose from.
Regards
Brian Haddon

When we legally drive a car on a publlc road, we are firstly charged under the terms of our driving licence, to observe the law. Safety follows on from this in terms of safe for conditions etc etc!

I cannot argue with your technical response, .... but I'll rephrase it --
When we drive a motor car on the public highway common sense and consideration for others dictate driving said vehicle at a speed commensurate with the conditions. The speed range we have to choose from is 0 to the maximum speed of the vehicle. However the law intervenes and reduces the ceiling of the speed range dependant on where we are driving. It doesn't alter the principle of driving at a speed commensurate with conditions it merely (legally) reduces the speed range we have to choose from.

What I am getting at is if you emphasise the speed limit for a road it becomes a focus for the driver and often ends up being the target speed - 'oh its a 30 limit so I can go at 30'. If you forget about limits initially and ask the driver to choose a speed based on the conditions they get to think about what they are doing. You don't focus on the speed ceiling dictated by the maximum speed of the vehicle so why focus on the artificially imposed ceiling. Think more of an appropriate speed between the two. You may be technically right but to me it is a frame of mind and approach.
Regards
Brian Haddon

[brianhaddon]

Members of the general public are usually astute enough to disregard the ludicrous interpretations put on the message of this particular clip as described in this thread. They understand that the faster a car is driven, the worse will be the outcome for the pedestrian that's hit. It's not rocket science.

Yes, what you say is obvious, but the object is not to hit them in the first place. What comes across from the official approach is that motorists are going to drive their vehicles into things anyway so lets slow everyone down so when they do hit things minimal damage results. None of these adverts impart the concept of varying our speed so we can always stop when conditions dictate. They merely emphasise not exceeding the limit.
Regards
Brian Haddon

[dth]

When we drive a motor car on the public highway we are charged with driving said vehicle at a speed commensurate with the conditions. The speed range we have to choose from is 0 to the maximum speed of the vehicle. However the law intervenes and reduces the ceiling of the speed range dependant on where we are driving. It doesn't alter the principle of driving at a speed commensurate with conditions it merely (legally) reduces the speed range we have to choose from.
Regards
Brian Haddon

When we legally drive a car on a publlc road, we are firstly charged under the terms of our driving licence, to observe the law. Safety follows on from this in terms of safe for conditions etc etc!

I cannot argue with your technical response, .... but I'll rephrase it --
When we drive a motor car on the public highway common sense and consideration for others dictate driving said vehicle at a speed commensurate with the conditions. The speed range we have to choose from is 0 to the maximum speed of the vehicle. However the law intervenes and reduces the ceiling of the speed range dependant on where we are driving. It doesn't alter the principle of driving at a speed commensurate with conditions it merely (legally) reduces the speed range we have to choose from.

What I am getting at is if you emphasise the speed limit for a road it becomes a focus for the driver and often ends up being the target speed - 'oh its a 30 limit so I can go at 30'. If you forget about limits initially and ask the driver to choose a speed based on the conditions they get to think about what they are doing. You don't focus on the speed ceiling dictated by the maximum speed of the vehicle so why focus on the artificially imposed ceiling. Think more of an appropriate speed between the two. You may be technically right but to me it is a frame of mind and approach.
Regards
Brian Haddon

I don't disagree with you in theory but in practice, most drivers are not actually that interested in the technical aspects of what they do, merely that what they do achieves an objective unrelated directly to the driving itself.

If drivers were more interested, then the number of them that have taken any sort of post-test training would be considerably higher than the current 0.001% (I think I remember this figure correctly)

[dth]

Members of the general public are usually astute enough to disregard the ludicrous interpretations put on the message of this particular clip as described in this thread. They understand that the faster a car is driven, the worse will be the outcome for the pedestrian that's hit. It's not rocket science.

Yes, what you say is obvious, but the object is not to hit them in the first place. What comes across from the official approach is that motorists are going to drive their vehicles into things anyway so lets slow everyone down so when they do hit things minimal damage results. None of these adverts impart the concept of varying our speed so we can always stop when conditions dictate. They merely emphasise not exceeding the limit.
Regards
Brian Haddon

Your explanation is more sane than the ones I referred to but the advert was designed to put across the obvious message which we all understand, done in such a way as to bring shock tactics to the table. Another example of this is the advert back in the early 1990s where the boy was hit and cartwheeled to his death on a busy shopping street where the car was travelling at 35mph instead of 30mph.

Appealing to drivers skills at varying speeds to suit conditions will always degenerate into an ineffective mess of opinion and questionable judgement from those drivers because many do not know enough about what they do. To suggest this to most men is like ridiculing their manhood and its abilities!!

Most drivers fail miserably at keeping decent stopping distances in front of them at any speed. To ask them to have the knowledge and will to choose safe speeds for conditions will always be problematical.