Breaking the speed limit whilst overtaking

[jont]

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.

I guess you haven't read my discussions in the legal section about my arguments with the local council. Round here many of the limits are arbitrary and often in the face of DfT and police advice where it seems the only criteria is that it helps someone get re-elected to the council

[jc2012]

.

[dombooth]

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.

It's not obvious at all. There are many roads, of all types, urban, sub-urban and rural where it is perfectly possible to drive well beyond the limit of vision whilst remaining 100% legal. The priority is not that you are legal, but that you can STOP.

The next priority being.. That you are legal.. I didn't say that it was first priority.

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

I don't think so. IMO, the first step in making someone a better driver is to get them to THINK about what they are doing and "thinking" is rather more than just comparing the speedo to the number on the stick.

The current approach may be simple and cheap, but it teaches nothing more than obedience.

I'm on the verge of giving up with this as I'm reading and typing the same things over and over and over and over again.

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.

Ah, the intransigence of youth. I remember that.

If so many voices are all telling you the same thing, is it not possible that there may be something in what they say? I don't think that anyone is claiming to have all the answers and nobody is telling you that you are necessarily wrong - clearly you have a much more responsible attitude than many (most?) of your age - but do remember that there is a tremendous amount of both driving and life experience in those voices.

I would urge you to think again about the YDD offer.

(Dictionary required there..) There also seems to be the same with other members.

As above.

Dom

[jcochrane]

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!
Dom

You seem to be trying to read something into what waremark said to fit in with your own thinking.

[dombooth]

You seem to be trying to read something into what waremark said to fit in with your own thinking.

"A given driver with a given set of skills will be safer if he/she drives more slowly."

Was what I said reworded.

Dom

[Gareth]

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.

Perhaps you could tell us the speed limit on this little section of road, and whether it would be safe to drive along its length at the posted limit.

[jc2012]

.

[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.

Perhaps you could tell us the speed limit on this little section of road, and whether it would be safe to drive along its length at the posted limit.

SC NSL and of course, why wouldn't it be safe to do 60?

(Don't ask silly questions if you don't want silly answers.)

I don't think I would drive down that road either as I like the sides of my car without scratches.

Dom

[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.

Perhaps you could tell us the speed limit on this little section of road, and whether it would be safe to drive along its length at the posted limit.

Nobody's saying its always safe to drive AT the speed limit. What I'm saying (and I suspect Dom agrees) is that you must never drive ABOVE the speed limit.

Yes I do agree, thank you.

Dom

[Gareth]

You seem to be trying to read something into what waremark said to fit in with your own thinking.

"A given driver with a given set of skills will be safer if he/she drives more slowly."

Was what I said reworded.

You seem to have missed that they aren't necessarily safe. Safe in many circumstances, but that's not the same. This is because being a slow driver isn't enough if the circumstances demand they should go slower to be safe. If a driver is stupid enough to believe that going slowly means they are safe then they clearly shouldn't be driving at all.

With regard to the section of road fairly close to where you live, you claimed, in response to mefoster's exasperation, that the chances of meeting roads where it was necessary to go slower than the speed limit depended on where a person lives. Physical hazards that demand going slower than the posted limit are pretty much everywhere, so a 'safety' campaign that doesn't focus on what is required to be a safe driver is like a chocolate fireguard.

[GJD]

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?

They can only exceed the speed limit when their purpose makes it necessary (although they aren't obliged to use lights or sirens when they do so), but that's beside what was my point . I used it as a (hopefully) non-controversial example of someone driving faster than the posted speed to illustrate the meaning of 'appropriate' as I thought James was using the word.

Concerning speed, there are four combinations of appropriateness and adherence to the limit. If I was confident I could get a fixed pitch font working I'd draw a 2 x 2 matrix . In the absence of that, a list:

A - driving at a safe speed below the limit
B - driving at a safe speed above the limit
C - driving at an unsafe speed below the speed limit
D - driving at an unsafe speed above the speed limit

A is obviously fine. The other three all have something wrong with them. I would put those three in the following order (most serious first): D, C, B.

An emergency services driver can do B perfectly legally when they need to. You and I can not do B legally, but we could choose to do it anyway where circumstances permitted. If we were to do it, we would, in my opinion, be committing the least severe of the errors that one can commit with speed.

This thread is as long as it is because of how strongly some here feel that the road safety focus should be on C and D instead of where it is currently - on B and D.

[jcochrane]

You seem to be trying to read something into what waremark said to fit in with your own thinking.

"A given driver with a given set of skills will be safer if he/she drives more slowly."

Was what I said reworded.

Dom

Thanks Gareth you've given a much better reply than I was going to. I was just going to say "no"

[dombooth]

You seem to be trying to read something into what waremark said to fit in with your own thinking.

"A given driver with a given set of skills will be safer if he/she drives more slowly."

Was what I said reworded.

You seem to have missed that they aren't necessarily safe. Safe in many circumstances, but that's not the same. This is because being a slow driver isn't enough if the circumstances demand they should go slower to be safe. If a driver is stupid enough to believe that going slowly means they are safe then they clearly shouldn't be driving at all.

With regard to the section of road fairly close to where you live, you claimed, in response to mefoster's exasperation, that the chances of meeting roads where it was necessary to go slower than the speed limit depended on where a person lives. Physical hazards that demand going slower than the posted limit are pretty much everywhere, so a 'safety' campaign that doesn't focus on what is required to be a safe driver is like a chocolate fireguard.

I didn't say they would be safe, I said they would be safer.

And anyway, I think I'd be pretty damn angry if I got to the end of that road and the gate with a "private road" sign on it was shut!!

http://goo.gl/maps/Hjll

Dom

[GJD]

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.

For legality, yes. For safety, not necessarily. Your description of someone who doesn't give themselves time to plan and goes round blind corners too fast is a description of someone making errors in safety, not errors in speed limit compliance.

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

No, of course not. Why would I think he'd be interested in whether it was safe? I refer the honourable gentleman to the answer I gave some moments ago (on page 6) :

...the definition of 'speeding' doesn't say anything about whether the speed was appropriate for the conditions. "It was perfectly safe" is not a defence, no matter how true it might be, and an accusation of exceeding the speed limit is not an accusation of necessarily having done anything at all unsafe.

[dombooth]

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.

For legality, yes. For safety, not necessarily. Your description of someone who doesn't give themselves time to plan and goes round blind corners too fast is a description of someone making errors in safety, not errors in speed limit compliance.

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

No, of course not. Why would I think he'd be interested in whether it was safe? I refer the honourable gentleman to the answer I gave some moments ago (on page 6) :

...the definition of 'speeding' doesn't say anything about whether the speed was appropriate for the conditions. "It was perfectly safe" is not a defence, no matter how true it might be, and an accusation of exceeding the speed limit is not an accusation of necessarily having done anything at all unsafe.

Couldn't it be both making errors in safety and errors in speed limit compliance..?

Having read that again I don't think the officer would be best please with a 'smart-ass' reply.

Dom