Breaking the speed limit whilst overtaking

[dth]

- ie there are many drivers who have a very responsible attitude to road safety and who choose to exceed the speed limit.

If you are talking in general terms, the two are not mutually compatible!

Someone earlier asked Dom why he did IAM if he thought that safety was achieved by complying with speed limits - or words to that effect. I hope the inference there is not that taking an advanced test is in any way related to a encouraging law breaking whether or not it might be safe.

[dombooth]

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.

Again, differing opinion, but I feel they are equal or the other way round to a young driver due to the mega-huge insurance hikes due to speeding, where-as an older person (no-offence to anyone) may see it the way you do because what would it add to their premium? A tenner?

Dom

[dombooth]

- ie there are many drivers who have a very responsible attitude to road safety and who choose to exceed the speed limit.

If you are talking in general terms, the two are not mutually compatible!

They are with the majority on this forum.

Dom

[dth]

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.

What worries me is that these sentiments are being brought to the training given to members of the public by those who often will not have any professional qualification and yet members of the public may regard them as having one.

A question for those who are Observers for IAM/RoSPA etc and have no driving qualifications apart from those from the organisation: What advice do you give your associates in terms of the drive you see when on observed runs as opposed to the drive you suggest should be done when they take their test?

[waremark]

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.

What worries me is that these sentiments are being brought to the training given to members of the public by those who often will not have any professional qualification and yet members of the public may regard them as having one.

A question for those who are Observers for IAM/RoSPA etc and have no driving qualifications apart from those from the organisation: What advice do you give your associates in terms of the drive you see when on observed runs as opposed to the drive you suggest should be done when they take their test?

I inform my Associates that the IAM as a road safety organisation does not in any way condone any breach of the law, and that on their advanced driving test they will have to demonstrate a high level of compliance with speed limits. I emphasise that whatever their personal attitude to speed limits they will find that they need to practise compliance in order to be able to demonstrate it on test and that for that reason I expect them to practise it during our observed drives. I comply with speed limits on any IAM demonstration drive.

Personally, I regret that if an Associate is not one who intends to comply with all speed limits I never get to see or help them improve their natural driving.

The High Performance Club also includes in its ? Rules ? and its Road Driving Code that it does not in any way condone any breach of the law.

[swatchways]

Someone earlier asked Dom why he did IAM if he thought that safety was achieved by complying with speed limits - or words to that effect. I hope the inference there is not that taking an advanced test is in any way related to a encouraging law breaking whether or not it might be safe.

Not in any way, no - quite the opposite in fact. He seemed to be going down a route that suggested he thought that if the speed was legal, safety would naturally follow. This being the case, as obviously complying with speed limits is easily done, I wondered whether he felt the rest of the training was therefore superfluous.

My question was intended to be the start of a line of questions that would hopefully draw out of him that there is much more to safe driving than simply obeying the speed limit, but despite typing my initial (badly worded) post, to be quite blunt I couldn't find the energy/interest in continuing the 'debate', such as it is.

[waremark]

- ie there are many drivers who have a very responsible attitude to road safety and who choose to exceed the speed limit.

If you are talking in general terms, the two are not mutually compatible!

I don't understand why not.

Someone earlier asked Dom why he did IAM if he thought that safety was achieved by complying with speed limits - or words to that effect. I hope the inference there is not that taking an advanced test is in any way related to a encouraging law breaking whether or not it might be safe.

No, I am sure that was not the intended inference. The point being made was that Dom obviously realised that safety could be enhanced by improving driving skill. If he thought that all you needed to do to become safe was to obey speed limits there would have been no point in improving his driving skills.

Subsequently, it was disappointing to learn that Dom's prime motivation was reduction of his insurance costs; we ought to be able to persuade people that learning to drive better is worthwhile to enhance both safety and enjoyment, whether or not recognised by insurers.

[jameslb101]

What worries me is that these sentiments are being brought to the training given to members of the public ...

Even if this were true (which I dispute) why does this worry you? Speeding in certain circumstances is safer than driving at a legal but inappropriately high speed in other circumstances. Many "normal" drivers go too quickly in hazardous situations like urban areas / villages, something which an AD course should repair.

A question for those who are Observers for IAM/RoSPA etc and have no driving qualifications apart from those from the organisation: What advice do you give your associates in terms of the drive you see when on observed runs as opposed to the drive you suggest should be done when they take their test?

Why should my own opinions on speed limits affect how I coach someone to pass their AD test? if I'm preparing someone for their AD test, that's exactly what I do - it's not my place to indoctrinate them with my personal views.

By the same token, police officers (present of retired) I've spoken to happen to share my views on speed limits but still enforce them as part of their jobs, not because they think it's the best use of their time, but because it's their job to.

[GJD]

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.

Again, differing opinion, but I feel they are equal or the other way round to a young driver due to the mega-huge insurance hikes due to speeding, where-as an older person (no-offence to anyone) may see it the way you do because what would it add to their premium? A tenner?

I see your point, although that wasn't what I meant by 'personally'. I didn't mean that in my own driving I personally take the first of those two responsibilities more seriously than the second. I meant that I personally feel that it is more important for road safety that the motoring population in general takes the first responsibility more seriously than the second.

[GJD]

- ie there are many drivers who have a very responsible attitude to road safety and who choose to exceed the speed limit.

If you are talking in general terms, the two are not mutually compatible!

I cannot comprehend what you mean.

There are occasions where it is perfectly safe to exceed the speed limit (there is no disagreement whatsoever here that to do so would be illegal). To drive safely and legally one must never drive faster than the lower of two independent thresholds - the speed that is appropriate for the conditions and allows one always to stop safely, and the posted speed limit. Sometimes the first threshold is higher than the second. Sometimes the second is higher than the first. Adherence to the first ensures safety. Independently, adherence to the second ensures legality.

Is there any statement in the preceding paragraph that you disagree with? I don't think anything I've said there is controversial, but unless you disagree with something I've said there I can't see what you mean in response to waremark.

I can conceive of a driver who selects their speed with diligent attention to the first threshold and allows themselves to exceed the speed limit when (and only when, and only to the extent that) doing so does not breach the first threshold, striving always to be safe, and believing that to be safe is extremely important. I don't see what's controversial about describing that as a very responsible attitude to road safety. If I were to describe someone who drive like that as having a very responsible attitude to road safety, that would tell you nothing about my feelings with regards to legality - specifically it would not imply that I thought they had a responsible attitude to the law, and it would not imply that I thought that adherence to the speed limit was unimportant.

[GJD]

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.

What worries me is that these sentiments are being brought to the training given to members of the public by those who often will not have any professional qualification and yet members of the public may regard them as having one.

What sentiment? That driving at a speed that is safe for the current conditions is more important than adhering to the speed limit? What worries you about that sentiment? Note that that is not the same as saying that adhering to the speed limit is unimportant. That would be a different sentiment and it would not surprise me at all if it worried you. But it's not the sentiment I express in the quote above.

A question for those who are Observers for IAM/RoSPA etc and have no driving qualifications apart from those from the organisation: What advice do you give your associates in terms of the drive you see when on observed runs as opposed to the drive you suggest should be done when they take their test?

That's a curious question. There are plenty of people here with a lot more experience of observing than I have, but it seems obvious to me that the drive I see on observed runs needs to be the same as they would demonstrate on test, and I'd surely be a fool to advise otherwise. That is the point of observed runs!

And I'd echo waremarks' response to your question.

[jcochrane]

I would agree with all your comments GJD, including that of waremark's response. I am also curious about the question.

I wonder if some have lost sight of the present discussion. At least as I understand it......

Which is action is more likely/important in order to improve the standard of driving to achieve greater safety on the roads?

1. Adherance to speed limits is sufficient and the route to take. (Imposing more and lower limits would possibly help.)
2. Learning to drive more safely. (Which does not mean the endorsement of exceeding limits.)

Whichever camp ones thoughts fall into any exceeding of limits is a choice of an individual for which they must bear the consequeces. Their licence, their choice.

[jont]

Dom - at least some of your comments seem to stem from the point of view of young/inexperienced drivers and that getting them to stick to speed limits will improve their safety. I agree they have some of the worst statistics for accidents, but have you thought about whether the current approach (primarily focussed on speed rather than many of the other aspects of safe driving) is really going to engage with them and be effective in stopping them killing themselves?

It looks like you joined ADUK around the time of the "unreachables" thread, but maybe you haven't read it in detail? In particular have a look at the article MrToad linked to here.

[dombooth]

Someone earlier asked Dom why he did IAM if he thought that safety was achieved by complying with speed limits - or words to that effect. I hope the inference there is not that taking an advanced test is in any way related to a encouraging law breaking whether or not it might be safe.

Not in any way, no - quite the opposite in fact. He seemed to be going down a route that suggested he thought that if the speed was legal, safety would naturally follow. This being the case, as obviously complying with speed limits is easily done, I wondered whether he felt the rest of the training was therefore superfluous.

My question was intended to be the start of a line of questions that would hopefully draw out of him that there is much more to safe driving than simply obeying the speed limit, but despite typing my initial (badly worded) post, to be quite blunt I couldn't find the energy/interest in continuing the 'debate', such as it is.

That's not what I said. In no way did I mean that if you follow speed limits you are safe, I said you would be safer going round a tight bend slower and faster.

Dom

[apple tango]

There's not much I can add that hasn't already been said. The use of speed can be safe or unsafe, and it can be legal or illegal; and the two are not the same thing.

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?

Just to bring up this point as it's a common misconception.

Police, fire and ambulance (et al) are exempt from speed limits if it would hinder their use. The use of blue lights and sirens is to make other road users aware of the urgency that the vehicle is being put to use.

Yes it is desirable for emergency vehicles to use the warning equipment when travelling above the prevailing limit because it helps to increase their visibility and mitigate any danger caused by others failing to judge their approach properly.

However the police will sometimes use their exemptions without warning equipment, for example there's no point having the siren going on the approach to a "burglary in progress" because it gives chance for the offenders to make good their escape. Covert operations etc are other examples I can think of. It's about striking a balance between using the equipment for safety vs the cost of giving the game away to the criminals.

Just because an emergency vehicles isn't using warning equipment does not mean they aren't going to an incident and doesn't mean they can't use their speed limit exemptions either.