Breaking the speed limit whilst overtaking

[TripleS]

I have sometimes heard it said that one can not be considered to be a good driver (let alone 'advanced') unless one complies with all the laws all the time. I don't agree with that. To my mind it is ludicrous to suggest that a driver (no matter how brilliant in various advanced ways) can not be considered 'advanced' (or even good) if they ever break the law.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

[GJD]

I think people obeying speed limits would be the first step in making them better at driving overall would it not?

It would make their driving less illegal. But I don't think, on its own, it would achieve anything more than that. What do you mean by 'better'?

[dombooth]

I think people obeying speed limits would be the first step in making them better at driving overall would it not?

It would make their driving less illegal. But I don't think, on its own, it would achieve anything more than that. What do you mean by 'better'?

I mean that by them slowing down it would in turn mean that they would have more time to think about the road, plan things and not be going flat out round corners they can't see round.

Dom

[dombooth]

I mean that by them slowing down it would in turn mean that they would have more time to think about the road, plan things and not be going flat out round corners they can't see round.

How does sticking to an arbitrary speed limit prevent someone from driving beyond the limit of their vision? There are many roads that I know where it is very easy for someone to "be going flat out round corners they can't see round", yet still be 100% legal. The two are not even remotely connected.

Thinking about the road and planning things is a little more involved than simple obedience.

I think it rather depends where you live/work/drive etc in different parts of the country as to what the roads/speed limits etc are like.

Of course it is a little more involved but surely being legal should be a priority in every drivers mind.

Dom

[GJD]

I think people obeying speed limits would be the first step in making them better at driving overall would it not?

Dom

In answer to your question, in my opinion, no. However, getting people to drive an an appropriate speed for the conditions would be a vital part of improving road safety.

You can't have one without the other, can you? Driving at an appropriate speed for the conditions means slowing down at least to within the speed limit, otherwise you're breaking the law.

Depends on your definition. Appropriateness as I believe James meant it is orthogonal to speed limit compliance. Drivers in the emergency services often drive above the speed limit, but when they do so they're still looking to drive at a speed appropriate for the conditions. Of course, in doing so they aren't breaking the law because they are exempt from the speed limit. If you (assuming you're not an emergency services driver) were to do the same thing - exceed the speed limit safely - I would describe your speed as illegal but not inappropriate. Of more relevance to those of us not in the emergency services are all the occasions where driving at the speed limit is inappropriate because it's too fast for the conditions.

If a driver can't demonstrate sufficient discipline to abide by one of the few rules of the road that is completely black and white, it doesn't give him much hope of driving responsibly in circumstances where more personal judgement comes into play.

That seems an odd conclusion to draw. Do you think that a cavalier attitude towards an arbitrary regulation like a speed limit necessarily implies a cavalier attitude towards safety?

[dombooth]

I think it rather depends where you live/work/drive etc in different parts of the country as to what the roads/speed limits etc are like.

Why?

Of course it is a little more involved but surely being legal should be a priority in every drivers mind.

A priority. Not necessarily the priority. It doesn't matter how legal you are if you're not safe and that takes a lot more than blind obedience.

Because isn't it obvious that you drive on different roads to the ones I drive on? So therefore will have different views that me.

But how is the first step with making someone a better driver to not make sure they're not breaking the law?

I feel a lot of "I know all and am right, you are wrong attitude on this forum." Please note this is not directed at any one person.

Dom

[dombooth]

Drivers in the emergency services often drive above the speed limit, but when they do so they're still looking to drive at a speed appropriate for the conditions. Of course, in doing so they aren't breaking the law because they are exempt from the speed limit.

Only when on a call with lights and/or sirens isn't it?

Doesn't excuse the Police driver up my exhaust all the way down the main road a while ago.

Dom

[jc2012]

.

[waremark]

I mean that by them slowing down it would in turn mean that they would have more time to think about the road, plan things and not be going flat out round corners they can't see round.

Dom

A given driver with a given set of skills will be safer if he/she drives more slowly. However, the same driver will be much safer still if both his/her level of skill and his/her desire to drive safely are raised.

The problem with focus on speed limits is that it tends to make drivers feel that they are ok so long as they are within the limit. But imagine a rural road with a half mile straight followed by a 30 mph double bend. Do you advocate a 30 mph limit beginning and ending before and after the bend? Or a 30 mph limit along the whole stretch? No? Then surely we rely on drivers to be able to judge a safe speed, and we should be educating them about the need to be able to stop in the distance they can see to be clear and reasonably expect to remain so. In my opinion this would be a more valuable focus than urging them to think about speed limits.

[dombooth]

If a driver can't demonstrate sufficient discipline to abide by one of the few rules of the road that is completely black and white, it doesn't give him much hope of driving responsibly in circumstances where more personal judgement comes into play.

That seems an odd conclusion to draw. Do you think that a cavalier attitude towards an arbitrary regulation like a speed limit necessarily implies a cavalier attitude towards safety?

Firstly, a speed limit isn't an arbitrary regulation, but a restriction put in place as a result of an assessment of various criteria and circumstances.

Since the primary concern of a speed limit is safety, someone who adopts a cavalier attitude towards it is already demonstrating a cavalier attitude to safety. Being an advanced driver doesn't given someone the right to decide whether the law is appropriate at any given time, and judge for themselves whether or not they should obey it.

It is a driver's responsibility to drive at a speed that is safe for the current conditions on any stretch of road, but NOT exceeding the limit.

Hallelujah! Someone types in favour of the law.

Dom

[dombooth]

I mean that by them slowing down it would in turn mean that they would have more time to think about the road, plan things and not be going flat out round corners they can't see round.

Dom

A given driver with a given set of skills will be safer if he/she drives more slowly. However, the same driver will be much safer still if both his/her level of skill and his/her desire to drive safely are raised.

The problem with focus on speed limits is that it tends to make drivers feel that they are ok so long as they are within the limit. But imagine a rural road with a half mile straight followed by a 30 mph double bend. Do you advocate a 30 mph limit beginning and ending before and after the bend? Or a 30 mph limit along the whole stretch? No? Then surely we rely on drivers to be able to judge a safe speed, and we should be educating them about the need to be able to stop in the distance they can see to be clear and reasonably expect to remain so. In my opinion this would be a more valuable focus than urging them to think about speed limits.

So by said driver obeying the speed limit they are safer! We agree! I thought it would never happen!

It would depend on how tight this double bend is so I, nor anyone else would be able to say what the speed limit should be.

There is a speed limit on my way home that is ridiculous, it doesn't mean I break the law though.

Dom

[GJD]

I mean that by them slowing down it would in turn mean that they would have more time to think about the road, plan things and not be going flat out round corners they can't see round.

What you describe sounds to me like careless or dangerous driving, not speeding.

If a driver does not have time to observe everything that's going on and plan accordingly, or if they can't stop in the distance they can see is clear (etc.) then of course they need to slow down. The speed they need to slow down to is determined by how far they can see to be clear, and how much time they need to observe and plan. The speed they need to slow down to for those purposes has absolutely nothing to do with the speed limit. It might, by chance, coincide with the speed limit. It might be faster than the speed limit. It might be slower than the speed limit. If the driver encounters identical conditions at the same place tomorrow, the speed they will need to slow down to tomorrow will be the same as the speed they need to slow down to today, even if overnight somebody posts a different speed limit, or (hypothetically) takes the speed limit away completely.

If the driver slows down such that they can now stop in the distance they can see is clear (etc.) and they have time to observe and plan, but their speed is above the limit, then they have achieved all they need to make their driving safe. They will need to slow further, however, if they also want their driving to be legal.

[waremark]

There is a speed limit on my way home that is ridiculous, it doesn't mean I break the law though.

Dom

No, I am sure that you drive at a safe speed, if lower than the speed limit. Many don't. I argue that more would if there was more focus on safe speed and less on the speed limit.

[dombooth]

I mean that by them slowing down it would in turn mean that they would have more time to think about the road, plan things and not be going flat out round corners they can't see round.

What you describe sounds to me like careless or dangerous driving, not speeding.

If a driver does not have time to observe everything that's going on and plan accordingly, or if they can't stop in the distance they can see is clear (etc.) then of course they need to slow down. The speed they need to slow down to is determined by how far they can see to be clear, and how much time they need to observe and plan. The speed they need to slow down to for those purposes has absolutely nothing to do with the speed limit. It might, by chance, coincide with the speed limit. It might be faster than the speed limit. It might be slower than the speed limit. If the driver encounters identical conditions at the same place tomorrow, the speed they will need to slow down to tomorrow will be the same as the speed they need to slow down to today, even if overnight somebody posts a different speed limit, or (hypothetically) takes the speed limit away completely.

If the driver slows down such that they can now stop in the distance they can see is clear (etc.) and they have time to observe and plan, but their speed is above the limit, then they have achieved all they need to make their driving safe. They will need to slow further, however, if they also want their driving to be legal.

But the speed that they slow down to should be within the speed limit, not above it.

What would your argument to the policeman that pulled you over for speeding? "It was safe"?

Dom

[dombooth]

There is a speed limit on my way home that is ridiculous, it doesn't mean I break the law though.

Dom

No, I am sure that you drive at a safe speed, if lower than the speed limit. Many don't. I argue that more would if there was more focus on safe speed and less on the speed limit.

That's where we differ, I don't think they would.

Dom