Breaking the speed limit whilst overtaking

[brianhaddon]

As usual dth I read your initial comments and go grrrrrr However, after a bit of communication I can't actually disagree with what you are writing. The problem is (and this is going to sound pompous) that to actually drive safely and effectively on the public highway does, as you seem to imply, require more thought and a different mental approach than many (most I would say) drivers seem capable of. The official approach seems to follow that line and keeps dumbing down the driving task so it becomes a depressing spiral to mediocrity. Simplistic slogans and images seem to be the order of the day. It may not matter how well people drive as long as we can give people their mobility and freedom and keep them safe from themselves. And that does seem to be the emphasis. I find it frustrating that skilful, thoughtful driving is being pressed out of existence by more and more restrictions. Your approach does seem to come from the legal standpoint initially and I cannot disagree with the technical aspect of that. My approach is from a different angle though. I do not steal from people because it is illegal I do not steal because it is not, in my mind, morally right. Just as I do not go around hitting people because I do not think it is nice. The legality merely seals it for me. The same applies to driving. However I guess most drivers do not think enough about the task in hand so your approach is not only technically right but probably necessary.
However, would the original question have arisen if we had derestricted roads out of built up areas? If there were sensible restrictions where necessary and freedom where restrictions were not necessary would the limits be taken more seriously? (What are the stats for the IOM?) The answer to the question should be obvious. But has the development of our driving environment and control imposed upon it made it debateable?
Regards
Brian Haddon

[waremark]

There are plenty of simple concepts that could be used to promote the goal through the simple mechanisms of keeping one's eyes outside the cockpit and engaging one's brain. Just off the top of my head - and I'm sure these could be improved upon...

Children step into the road. Expect it before it happens.
Look for places an unseen child might appear from instead of waiting to react.
Think of the stupid things you did as a child.
Picture the child running out from behind the bus before you see them.
Think how satisfying it is to know that your planning saved child's life today.

In comparison, "slow down so that when you hit one it probably won't die" is a despicable, cheap cop-out. It is a disgusting message and whoever dreamed it up should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.

GJD hits the nail on the head. I am another who found those ads offensive, and the message still seems to be used in more recent ads (as in 'It's 30 for a reason'). As an aside, it may be 30 for a reason, but the reason is not that pedestrians hit at 30 have a reasonable chance of surviving!

In order to avoid children being hit, we think the important message is not 'Obey the speed limit' but rather 'Expect children to step out into the road, look for where they might come from and be ready to stop in time if they do'. One way to communicate this message would be to use video of children stepping out, a car stopping, with the caption: 'Could you have stopped in time?'

[dombooth]

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.

(My underlining.)

Most drivers don't have that desire though do they? So they wouldn't, for example, go out for a drive with good drivers, go to the IAM/ROSPA/ADUK Driving Days, watch videos, read books would they?

How wouldn't it cost anything? IAM is £139, ROSPA is (from what I can find) around £61/£68 dependant on age. You've then got to put the overpriced fuel in the car to make it move. It all costs, nothing is free.

Dom

[dombooth]

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.

My excess is stupidly high at the moment to try and get the stupid costs of my insurance down.

My excess is £1500, what's yours?

Dom

[dombooth]

There are plenty of simple concepts that could be used to promote the goal through the simple mechanisms of keeping one's eyes outside the cockpit and engaging one's brain. Just off the top of my head - and I'm sure these could be improved upon...

Children step into the road. Expect it before it happens.
Look for places an unseen child might appear from instead of waiting to react.
Think of the stupid things you did as a child.
Picture the child running out from behind the bus before you see them.
Think how satisfying it is to know that your planning saved child's life today.

In comparison, "slow down so that when you hit one it probably won't die" is a despicable, cheap cop-out. It is a disgusting message and whoever dreamed it up should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.

GJD hits the nail on the head. I am another who found those ads offensive, and the message still seems to be used in more recent ads (as in 'It's 30 for a reason'). As an aside, it may be 30 for a reason, but the reason is not that pedestrians hit at 30 have a reasonable chance of surviving!

In order to avoid children being hit, we think the important message is not 'Obey the speed limit' but rather 'Expect children to step out into the road, look for where they might come from and be ready to stop in time if they do'. One way to communicate this message would be to use video of children stepping out, a car stopping, with the caption: 'Could you have stopped in time?'

(My underlining.)

Just to relate this to my situation, when in the car with dad and he's driving about 6 foot off their exhaust doing 60 I ask him "If he stopped now, could you?" His answer every time is "Yes.".

Dom

[jcochrane]

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.

(My underlining.)

Most drivers don't have that desire though do they? So they wouldn't, for example, go out for a drive with good drivers, go to the IAM/ROSPA/ADUK Driving Days, watch videos, read books would they?

How wouldn't it cost anything? IAM is £139, ROSPA is (from what I can find) around £61/£68 dependant on age. You've then got to put the overpriced fuel in the car to make it move. It all costs, nothing is free.

Dom

To repeat, yet again, what I and others keep saying, there needs to be a change in the messages to encourage people to learn to be safer, to want to be safer.

Of course it's not free. I did not suggest it was. If they can't afford the fuel then it does not matter because they won't be able to run the car anyway and will have to travel by public transport.

[swatchways]

In order to avoid children being hit, we think the important message is not 'Obey the speed limit' but rather 'Expect children to step out into the road, look for where they might come from and be ready to stop in time if they do'. One way to communicate this message would be to use video of children stepping out, a car stopping, with the caption: 'Could you have stopped in time?'

(My underlining.)

Just to relate this to my situation, when in the car with dad and he's driving about 6 foot off their exhaust doing 60 I ask him "If he stopped now, could you?" His answer every time is "Yes.".

Dom

But isn't that exactly the problem - that attitude of 'he's doing the speed limit, therefore he's safe'? It's the very nature of the argument others are trying to show you these adverts convey.

[dombooth]

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.

(My underlining.)

Most drivers don't have that desire though do they? So they wouldn't, for example, go out for a drive with good drivers, go to the IAM/ROSPA/ADUK Driving Days, watch videos, read books would they?

How wouldn't it cost anything? IAM is £139, ROSPA is (from what I can find) around £61/£68 dependant on age. You've then got to put the overpriced fuel in the car to make it move. It all costs, nothing is free.

Dom

To repeat, yet again, what I and others keep saying, there needs to be a change in the messages to encourage people to learn to be safer, to want to be safer.

Of course it's not free. I did not suggest it was. If they can't afford the fuel then it does not matter because they won't be able to run the car anyway and will have to travel by public transport.

I don't think you ever will encourage some people that are similar to my dad to want to be safer.

Does not have to cost that much if at all.

ring any bells?

Public transport. Don't get me started on that PITA!

Dom

[dombooth]

In order to avoid children being hit, we think the important message is not 'Obey the speed limit' but rather 'Expect children to step out into the road, look for where they might come from and be ready to stop in time if they do'. One way to communicate this message would be to use video of children stepping out, a car stopping, with the caption: 'Could you have stopped in time?'

(My underlining.)

Just to relate this to my situation, when in the car with dad and he's driving about 6 foot off their exhaust doing 60 I ask him "If he stopped now, could you?" His answer every time is "Yes.".

Dom

But isn't that exactly the problem - that attitude of 'he's doing the speed limit, therefore he's safe'? It's the very nature of the argument others are trying to show you these adverts convey.

That's not the attitude he has, he wanted to overtake and take off down the 30 limit at 60! Not just sit behind him happily.

http://goo.gl/maps/94di - this one to be precise, it was 10:30pm ish but that's not the point.

Dom

[jcochrane]

Does not have to cost that much if at all.

ring any bells?

Dom

In the context of my post I was referring the cost for the training, but you probably knew that anyway.

I've only paid for a tiny amount of the training I've received over the years. Virtually all my training has been for free except for the cost of fuel. I can usually get out 2 or 3 times a month, with someone, with the intention of getting training input on my driving. No cost for the training, just fuel and a cup of coffee, sometimes a cake as well.

[fungus]

Your reply indicates you are still missing the point. If a driver is "unable/incompetent to decide what speed etc is safe" imposing a 30 limit instead of 40 does not make their driving safe. That is the very thinking we have been arguing against. Circumstances on any section of road vary from moment to moment requiring reassessment and variation of speed. [Not forgetting position and gear.] There is not one set speed that if not exceeded will be safe for a stretch of road at all times in all conditions.

Better to train, re-educate etc.

In answer to your question..If a driver is genuinely "unable/incompetent" to learn then why have they been allowed to have a driver's licence. For such drivers why stop at 30 why not 5 or 10 or even better 0. An arbitrary speed limit is no answer. Such a person should not be driving.

If drivers are able/competent to learn then they need training to become safer.[/quote]

While it doesn't make their driving safe, it makes anything they happen to hit less affected. Put it this way, would you rather hit something at 40 or 30? (Not at all isn't an option. ).

The amount of times I've asked my dad to 'slow down', 'get out of the car infront's exhaust' etc is uncountable! I really hate having to get in the car with him driving sometimes..

Dom[/quote]

So the problem here is that your father is either unable to asses a safe speed/following distance etc. or can, but deliberately chooses to over ride his possibly accurate assessment, (it won't happen to me etc).

[waremark]

No cost for the training, just fuel and a cup of coffee, sometimes a cake as well.

Cake at a coffee stop! A distant memory! (For those who don't know me, down over 4 stone in the last year).

[ScoobyChris]

Just to relate this to my situation, when in the car with dad and he's driving about 6 foot off their exhaust doing 60 I ask him "If he stopped now, could you?" His answer every time is "Yes.".

And he's not alone - lots of people tailgate on a daily basis and never have a problem so they have an underlying belief that their driving is safe (reinforced by miles between accidents). I don't think lecturing is the answer though because that's unlikely to change the belief (as you found out )...

Chris

[dombooth]

Your reply indicates you are still missing the point. If a driver is "unable/incompetent to decide what speed etc is safe" imposing a 30 limit instead of 40 does not make their driving safe. That is the very thinking we have been arguing against. Circumstances on any section of road vary from moment to moment requiring reassessment and variation of speed. [Not forgetting position and gear.] There is not one set speed that if not exceeded will be safe for a stretch of road at all times in all conditions.

Better to train, re-educate etc.

In answer to your question..If a driver is genuinely "unable/incompetent" to learn then why have they been allowed to have a driver's licence. For such drivers why stop at 30 why not 5 or 10 or even better 0. An arbitrary speed limit is no answer. Such a person should not be driving.

If drivers are able/competent to learn then they need training to become safer.

While it doesn't make their driving safe, it makes anything they happen to hit less affected. Put it this way, would you rather hit something at 40 or 30? (Not at all isn't an option. ).

The amount of times I've asked my dad to 'slow down', 'get out of the car infront's exhaust' etc is uncountable! I really hate having to get in the car with him driving sometimes..

Dom[/quote]

So the problem here is that your father is either unable to asses a safe speed/following distance etc. or can, but deliberately chooses to over ride his possibly accurate assessment, (it won't happen to me etc).[/quote]

It's this attitude that most people have got. He also will never use high beam.
I hate being thrown around the car when he's going round bends with one hand on the wheel as fast as he can.

Dom

[dombooth]

In the context of my post I was referring the cost for the training, but you probably knew that anyway.

I've only paid for a tiny amount of the training I've received over the years. Virtually all my training has been for free except for the cost of fuel. I can usually get out 2 or 3 times a month, with someone, with the intention of getting training input on my driving. No cost for the training, just fuel and a cup of coffee, sometimes a cake as well.

As was I..

I will be doing ROSPA, and attending ADUK driving days, and IAM Skills Days in the near future. But unless I win the lottery or my insurance changed It'll all have to wait until September.

Dom