Breaking the speed limit whilst overtaking

[swatchways]

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

Indeed, let's reinstate the man with the red flag at 4mph...

I have to ask Dom, what prompted you to do your IAM course? If you believe that driving within speed limits creates optimum safety levels anyway, why do you need that extra training?

[dombooth]

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

Indeed, let's reinstate the man with the red flag at 4mph...

I have to ask Dom, what prompted you to do your IAM course? If you believe that driving within speed limits creates optimum safety levels anyway, why do you need that extra training?

The prompt to do it was to try to lower the stupidly overpriced car insurance. I only found out that IAM Surety was for 19s+ when I called them.

(My underlining.) - Where the hell did I say that!? I did not say that driving within the speed limits made them "safe" I said it would make them "safeR".

Dom

[GJD]

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.

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

Not giving yourself time to plan and going round blind corners too fast are errors in safety, not errors in speed limit compliance, because they are errors that can be made below the speed limit, above the speed limit, and on roads with no speed limit, and because the speed you need to slow down to in order to address those errors (i.e. in order to have time to plan, or to see round the corner) is independent of the speed limit.

If, while committing those errors in safety, someone is also driving above the speed limit then they are, of course, also committing an error in speed limit compliance. But that error is independent of the errors in safety.

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

Ah. I didn't mean I'd refer the policeman to page 6 of this thread. I was referring you to page 6 - you're the honourable gentleman .

[dombooth]

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.

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

Not giving yourself time to plan and going round blind corners too fast are errors in safety, not errors in speed limit compliance, because they are errors that can be made below the speed limit, above the speed limit, and on roads with no speed limit, and because the speed you need to slow down to in order to address those errors (i.e. in order to have time to plan, or to see round the corner) is independent of the speed limit.

If, while committing those errors in safety, someone is also driving above the speed limit then they are, of course, also committing an error in speed limit compliance. But that error is independent of the errors in safety.

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

Ah. I didn't mean I'd refer the policeman to page 6 of this thread. I was referring you to page 6 - you're the honourable gentleman .

I got that.

I read it as though it would be said to a policeman and thought it sounded smart arseish.

Dom

[MGF]

A couple of questions.

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.

Do you find your associates to be generally safe drivers or unsafe? If safe are they generally complying with the limit?

... 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.

Surely speed limits are not expected to improve people's driving, simply to reduce the adverse consequences of them getting it wrong?

[jcochrane]

A couple of questions.

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.

Do you find your associates to be generally safe drivers or unsafe? If safe are they generally complying with the limit?

... 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.

Surely speed limits are not expected to improve people's driving, simply to reduce the adverse consequences of them getting it wrong?

Although not addressed to me, if I may give my answer.

To your first question, when they first come, they are unsafe from the point of view of not slowing enough on the approach to hazards. All the observers in my group find this to be true. We repeatedly, in the beginning, are saying slow down more, brake earlier, more firmly, lift off earlier etc. However it is very rare for speed limits, in the main, to be exceeded, except occasionally to a mild degree. They will generally try very hard to keep to posted limits in the misguided belief that this is the most important aspect that will make them safe advanced drivers. A great deal of our teaching is to get them to understand the correct use of speed through concentration, observation and planning. And to THINK.

I think this probably covers your second question.

[Gareth]

Do you find your associates to be generally safe drivers or unsafe? If safe are they generally complying with the limit?

I've found many attending ADUK days are too quick in places they should be going slower, and in the main these are people who have passed an IAM or RoADAR advanced driving test and who, in the main, are concerned about driving safety. At other times I've often found non-'advanced' drivers tend to be generally too quick in urban situations and are either boring or scary on rural roads.

Surely speed limits are not expected to improve people's driving, simply to reduce the adverse consequences of them getting it wrong?

But it's only a half a message, meaning the adverse consequences can be quite severe while driving unsafely but legally. What's the point in willfully not highlighting the characteristic required for safety? Especially given that it would promote safe driving irrespective of legality?

Is legality more important than safety?

[waremark]

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. 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.

A very subjective view. In my subjective view, based on personal experience of being driven by many different drivers, there is little correlation between having a responsible attitude to road safety and choosing to obey the speed limit - ie there are many drivers who have a very responsible attitude to road safety and who choose to exceed the speed limit.

[waremark]

A couple of questions.

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.

Do you find your associates to be generally safe drivers or unsafe? If safe are they generally complying with the limit?

Generally safe, but where unsafe invariably within the limit, as commented by others.

They are always trying to obey the limit while on an observed drive, and they only forget to do so on a road where a higher speed than the limit both feels and is comfortably safe. I don't regard such errors in relation to speed limits as signs of either irresponsibility or immorality. I regret the concentration that associates have to give to observation of and compliance with limits, because I consider that it reduces their capacity for more important aspects of safe driving.

[Gareth]

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.

Absolutely - but I think there's a wider point in that people generally are flexible about transgressing laws where they don't see a victim, and when sufficient people do this it can be the reason laws get changed.

With regard to speed limits I think there would be a greater compliance if limits were consistent across the country and it was clear what principles of safety were being applied for the outlier cases. As it is the motoring public are suspicious of special interests or influence being applied for non-safety reasons.

A driver ought to be able to look at a road and have a reasonable idea what limit is in force for that particular section. When that is not the case respect for the posted limit is diminished.

[GJD]

Ah. I didn't mean I'd refer the policeman to page 6 of this thread. I was referring you to page 6 - you're the honourable gentleman .

I got that.

I read it as though it would be said to a policeman and thought it sounded smart arseish.

I quite agree. Not the sort of thing to say to the policeman at all. Much better to stick to asking him whether his head goes all the way to the top of that helmet.

[GJD]

With regard to speed limits I think there would be a greater compliance if limits were consistent across the country and it was clear what principles of safety were being applied for the outlier cases. As it is the motoring public are suspicious of special interests or influence being applied for non-safety reasons.

A driver ought to be able to look at a road and have a reasonable idea what limit is in force for that particular section.

I agree with you. It may be what you meant anyway, but I'd add that a driver also ought to be able to look at a road for which they know the speed limit and not feel that the limit is incongruous. When that is not the case respect for the posted limit is also diminished.

[fungus]

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

Exactly Jon.

We have the same situation around here. One stretch of D/C reduced to 50 against the advice of the police. Another reduced to 50 which in the opinion of a retired traffic officer was totally inappropriate for the road. The council did lose one change however where they wanted to extend a 30 limit out about 200yds. The police opposed it, and it didn't get passed

[GJD]

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.

I'm afraid I can't agree with you there at all. Perhaps my use of the word cavalier put you in mind of a somewhat different scenario than I intended. The main road through my village used to have a 40mph speed limit throughout. At times, I have driven at speeds between 30 and 40 along that road, I am sure quite safely, and certainly with every intention of being able to stop within the distance I can see is clear. More recently, the limit on one stretch has been reduced from 40 to 30. If I had gone out the day after the reduction, encountered the same road conditions as the previous day, and driven at the same speeds (between 30 and 40) with the same approach to safety (always being able to stop in the distance I could see was clear), I would of course have been speeding, and therefore driving illegally. However, I find it difficult to see how anybody could argue that my driving was any less safe than it had been the previous day, when I was driving at the same speed in the same road conditions.

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.

To my mind, those are two completely separate responsibilities. Personally, I feel that the first (driving at a speed that is safe for the current conditions) is more important than the second (not exceeding the speed limit) because it is by failing in the first that one might come to do harm.

[fungus]

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.

I'm afraid I can't agree with you there at all. Perhaps my use of the word cavalier put you in mind of a somewhat different scenario than I intended. The main road through my village used to have a 40mph speed limit throughout. At times, I have driven at speeds between 30 and 40 along that road, I am sure quite safely, and certainly with every intention of being able to stop within the distance I can see is clear. More recently, the limit on one stretch has been reduced from 40 to 30. If I had gone out the day after the reduction, encountered the same road conditions as the previous day, and driven at the same speeds (between 30 and 40) with the same approach to safety (always being able to stop in the distance I could see was clear), I would of course have been speeding, and therefore driving illegally. However, I find it difficult to see how anybody could argue that my driving was any less safe than it had been the previous day, when I was driving at the same speed in the same road conditions.

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.

To my mind, those are two completely separate responsibilities. Personally, I feel that the first (driving at a speed that is safe for the current conditions) is more important than the second (not exceeding the speed limit) because it is by failing in the first that one might come to do harm.

+1