Breaking the speed limit whilst overtaking

[dombooth]

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.

Probably not but I don't know any other way really, having spoken to friends and they all don't want to do IAM because it's seen as a pensioners club. (Apologies to the pensioners amongst me.)

I did read it both here and on the IAM forum yes. And I think it was a good idea that worked well but it's all a case of money (or lack of it) to do something similar wider spread.

Dom

[dombooth]

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.

Okay, thanks. I presume the drivers wasn't rushing to somewhere in an emergency or he could've flashed me to move out of his way without using the blues.

Dom

[dombooth]

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?

Probably not but I don't know any other way really [...]

Isn't that precisely what people are trying to show you? A different way?

Not from where I'm sitting?

People advocating breaking the law is just wrong. It's illegal to drive the wrong way down a one way road, would you do that one too?

Dom

[jcochrane]

Probably not but I don't know any other way really, having spoken to friends and they all don't want to do IAM because it's seen as a pensioners club. (Apologies to the pensioners amongst me.)

Dom

I've heard this said before but I'm never really sure what impression a young person has when they think that about the IAM. I don't think it is just a case that there all over 50. I suspect they have a concept as to what type of driving style they represent and that puts them off.

I would welcome your feedback on what your friends think. Particularly regarding the style of driving that would be represented.

[dombooth]

Probably not but I don't know any other way really, having spoken to friends and they all don't want to do IAM because it's seen as a pensioners club. (Apologies to the pensioners amongst me.)

Dom

I've heard this said before but I'm never really sure what impression a young person has when they think that about the IAM. I don't think it is just a case that there all over 50. I suspect they have a concept as to what type of driving style they represent and that puts them off.

I would welcome your feedback on what your friends think. Particularly regarding the style of driving that would be represented.

I think it's mainly the old 'safety=slow' image.

Another thing is most of the older generation are very stuck in their ways, won't change, and won't accept any other views than theirs.

When I told my observer that I "didn't read", s/he spoke to another (older) observer in the group who said that I should "learn to read". Not nice is it..?

I don't read as in I can't sit and read a book. If the book was online/computerised I'd read it in bits quite happily.

Dom

[dombooth]

Isn't that precisely what people are trying to show you? A different way?

Not from where I'm sitting?

People advocating breaking the law is just wrong.

Who is doing that?

Seriously? Is that really what you read in this discussion?

See my last post above this one.

Yes, if you need to break the speed limit to overtake someone then why bother, what's the other driver going to think of you/advanced drivers.

Dom

[fungus]

Yes, if you need to break the speed limit to overtake someone then why bother, what's the other driver going to think of you/advanced drivers.

Dom

No one is inferring that you should deliberately break the law.

Going back to my first post, I said that if it were question of legality or safety, I would choose to break the speed limit if I had misjudged the overtake. Whilst it might be desirable to overtake and not break the speed limit, the fact remains that we are human, and humans make errors of judgement, so we then have to make a decision on the best course of action to correct our error, and it might be that flooring it to get out of the awkward situation is the correct action.

Leaving legality aside for now, (nanny knows best), what we have seen over a number of years now is the lowering of speed limits as a safety measure. This is by far the cheapest option open to the roads authorities, and although it does show success in some areas, it is not by any means the best answer. All this will do is dumb down standards, and if anything contributes to disrespect for the limits that are set reasonably. The problem is that the general driving public are just not interested in improvement, most seeing driving as a right and simply as a means of getting from A to B.

Consider this.

On Monday the speed limit on a stretch of road is 60. You are driving on this stretch of road perfectly safely at 60, with a police car behind you. No problem, you were not speeding and you were not driving dangerously. On Tuesday the speed limit is changed to 30. You are driving the same stretch of road with a police car following you. You fail to notice the change in speed limit and you get pulled over and given a NIP. As your speed was double the new speed limit, you will have to go to court as you are above the limit at which a fixed penalty would be applied. All that had changed is that the LIMIT had been changed, your driving hadn't. And yet you now face a hefty fine and points on your licence.

I can't remember who this quote is by, but there is a lot of truth in it. "Measure what's important. Don't make important what you can measure." If this were adopted by those in charge of the highways departments, then maybe we would see better safety statistics than we already have.

At one of our groups monthly meets, one of our examiners, ex Met traffic pol, said that he'd booked more for dangerous driving than for speeding. To me this implied that he was concentrating on road safety rather than pure legality.

Was he correct? I think so.

[dombooth]

Another thing is most of the older generation are very stuck in their ways, won't change, and won't accept any other views than theirs.

A fairly common point of view amongst the younger generation I suspect, but not always true; I did the HPC entry course when I was 68 and that certainly required acceptance of some new views.

But the views you took in will be from a similar aged person, not a teenager.

Dom

[dombooth]

:D

Yes, if you need to break the speed limit to overtake someone then why bother, what's the other driver going to think of you/advanced drivers.

Dom

No one is inferring that you should deliberately break the law.

Going back to my first post, I said that if it were question of legality or safety, I would choose to break the speed limit if I had misjudged the overtake. Whilst it might be desirable to overtake and not break the speed limit, the fact remains that we are human, and humans make errors of judgement, so we then have to make a decision on the best course of action to correct our error, and it might be that flooring it to get out of the awkward situation is the correct action.

Leaving legality aside for now, (nanny knows best), what we have seen over a number of years now is the lowering of speed limits as a safety measure. This is by far the cheapest option open to the roads authorities, and although it does show success in some areas, it is not by any means the best answer. All this will do is dumb down standards, and if anything contributes to disrespect for the limits that are set reasonably. The problem is that the general driving public are just not interested in improvement, most seeing driving as a right and simply as a means of getting from A to B.

Consider this.

On Monday the speed limit on a stretch of road is 60. You are driving on this stretch of road perfectly safely at 60, with a police car behind you. No problem, you were not speeding and you were not driving dangerously. On Tuesday the speed limit is changed to 30. You are driving the same stretch of road with a police car following you. You fail to notice the change in speed limit and you get pulled over and given a NIP. As your speed was double the new speed limit, you will have to go to court as you are above the limit at which a fixed penalty would be applied. All that had changed is that the LIMIT had been changed, your driving hadn't. And yet you now face a hefty fine and points on your licence.

I can't remember who this quote is by, but there is a lot of truth in it. "Measure what's important. Don't make important what you can measure." If this were adopted by those in charge of the highways departments, then maybe we would see better safety statistics than we already have.

At one of our groups monthly meets, one of our examiners, ex Met traffic pol, said that he'd booked more for dangerous driving than for speeding. To me this implied that he was concentrating on road safety rather than pure legality.

Was he correct? I think so.

"No one is inferring that you should deliberately break the law."

What the.....? Have I been reading another thread where people have been saying that they drive to the conditions even if that speed is above the limit?

Dom

[jcochrane]

Probably not but I don't know any other way really, having spoken to friends and they all don't want to do IAM because it's seen as a pensioners club. (Apologies to the pensioners amongst me.)

Dom

I've heard this said before but I'm never really sure what impression a young person has when they think that about the IAM. I don't think it is just a case that there all over 50. I suspect they have a concept as to what type of driving style they represent and that puts them off.

I would welcome your feedback on what your friends think. Particularly regarding the style of driving that would be represented.

I think it's mainly the old 'safety=slow' image.

Another thing is most of the older generation are very stuck in their ways, won't change, and won't accept any other views than theirs.

When I told my observer that I "didn't read", s/he spoke to another (older) observer in the group who said that I should "learn to read". Not nice is it..?

I don't read as in I can't sit and read a book. If the book was online/computerised I'd read it in bits quite happily.

Dom

I thought that might be the case and whilst it is perhaps true of some groups or observers it is not always the case. Some groups are blessed in having police advanced trained observers and others such as members of HPC. I doubt there are many young people that would consider the driving of these people to be anything like they imagined.

The problem is how to get this across. The IAM is at the moment looking into the possibility of involving the HPC more. A number of examiners have voiced support in wishing every group could have at least one HPC person in the hope of bringing skill and enthusiasm for driving to the groups and to get them to think "outside the box".

Now you are a member how would go about changing the image?

By the way the comments about the older generation also well describes many of the younger generation to which could be added that they always think they are right and nobody understands them. They forget that the older generation was once the younger generation but they are now wiser. How younger people hate wiser people but then we used to when we were younger.

I think it unfortunate that you have chosen to interpret the posts here the way you have (reminds me of your comments about the older generation) as there have been some good thought provoking posts and I fear you will have missed the opportunity to develop a broader, deeper understanding of advanced driving. That's your choice and your loss.

Many thanks for responding and for the feedback. Do let me know if you can come up with any ideas to change the IAM image amongst younger drivers although it is probably a view held by many not so young as well. Rather than take over this thread, if you have any thoughts, it might be best to send a PM.

[GJD]

No one is inferring that you should deliberately break the law.

What the.....? Have I been reading another thread where people have been saying that they drive to the conditions even if that speed is above the limit?

Who has said they do that?

Several people have used the concept of driving to the conditions even if that speed is above the limit in attempts to illustrate the difference between driving safely and driving legally, to support an argument advocating focus on safe driving rather focus than on speed limit compliance. I can't recall any of them saying that driving to the conditions even if that speed is above the limit is something they choose to do, or trying to persuade others that it's something they should do.

(We are up to page 18 now though, so if I may have missed it, or forgotten I read it).

[dombooth]

I thought that might be the case and whilst it is perhaps true of some groups or observers it is not always the case. Some groups are blessed in having police advanced trained observers and others such as members of HPC. I doubt there are many young people that would consider the driving of these people to be anything like they imagined.

The problem is how to get this across. The IAM is at the moment looking into the possibility of involving the HPC more. A number of examiners have voiced support in wishing every group could have at least one HPC person in the hope of bringing skill and enthusiasm for driving to the groups and to get them to think "outside the box".

Now you are a member how would go about changing the image?

By the way the comments about the older generation also well describes many of the younger generation to which could be added that they always think they are right and nobody understands them. They forget that the older generation was once the younger generation but they are now wiser. How younger people hate wiser people but then we used to when we were younger.

I think it unfortunate that you have chosen to interpret the posts here the way you have as there have been some good thought provoking posts and I fear you will have missed the opportunity to develop a broader, deeper understanding of advanced driving. That's your choice and your loss.

Many thanks for responding and for the feedback. Do let me know if you can come up with any ideas to change the IAM image amongst younger drivers although it is probably a view held by many not so young as well. Rather than take over this thread, if you have any thoughts, it might be best to send a PM.

The only thing that I can think of is more groups betting off their rears and doing something tbh, but anyway, that's for another thread if you want to.

Dom

[dombooth]

No one is inferring that you should deliberately break the law.

What the.....? Have I been reading another thread where people have been saying that they drive to the conditions even if that speed is above the limit?

Who has said they do that?

Several people have used the concept of driving to the conditions even if that speed is above the limit in attempts to illustrate the difference between driving safely and driving legally, to support an argument advocating focus on safe driving rather focus than on speed limit compliance. I can't recall any of them saying that driving to the conditions even if that speed is above the limit is something they choose to do, or trying to persuade others that it's something they should do.

(We are up to page 18 now though, so if I may have missed it, or forgotten I read it).

I know it's been said on this thread somewhere but I'm not trawling through 18 pages to find it.

Do we need to be reminded of this thread: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3832&view=viewpoll

Dom

[MGF]

...People advocating breaking the law is just wrong. It's illegal to drive the wrong way down a one way road, would you do that one too?

Dom

You raise a good point Dom. That is, that there are many regulations regarding driving that advanced drivers generally obey and do not seek to justify non-compliance with even going as far as to make an unfounded link between non-compliance and safety. For example, the statutory requirement for insurance has nothing whatsoever to do with road safety. It merely answers the economic question, who pays? Yet there are various references on this forum asserting that driving without insurance compromises road safety.

Of course, you are free to believe and to claim that non-compliance with traffic regulations is irresponsible. It is difficult to argue with that. Furthermore you can claim that advanced drivers should not be irresponsible.

The difficulty arises when making direct links between compliance and safety.

I haven't seen anything in the posts above that convinces me that speed limits inhibit most drivers from choosing an appropriate safe speed.

Most drivers like to drive at fairly constant speeds they feel comfortable with and this appears not to be the consequence of speed limits but a consequence of human nature and the level of training needed to pass the DSA test.

When you prepared for your IAM test did you notice a significant increase in the variation of your speed over a particular stretch of road? I believe this variation is at the heart of advanced driving. Matching speed to hazards. If one is doing this, mandatory speed limits become superfluous.

More importantly the relentless reduction in limits provides ever decreasing opportunities to drive progressively and safely. I suggest, that is why advanced drivers, are frustrated with limits.

As you are a relatively new driver, decreases in limits have had much less impact on you than others contributing here. You may have a different opinion in 20 years time

So, believing that speeding is irresponsible and not appropriate behaviour for advanced drivers is a point of view that is respectable and indeed supported by the AD organisations.

Directly linking speed limits with safety undermines basic principles of AD which is one reason you are getting such a negative response.

Finally, well done for doing your advanced test even if it was only to reduce your insurance premiums. The benefit for you, and others, may well be much more than financial.

[jameslb101]

Have I been reading another thread where people have been saying that they drive to the conditions even if that speed is above the limit?

Dom

Link to this thread?

Dom, as has been said before, the safely and legality of speed are two independent issues. Nowhere has anyone disputed the legality, berated anyone for choosing to comply with them, or even said they don't comply them themselves. Never has it been denied that if someone exceeds the speed limit, the total responsibility lies with them. Every time someone chooses to speed they must do so accepting the possible legal consequences, and nobody on this forum would deny that.

Some of the most competent and safest drivers I've has the fortune of being a passenger with, have been those with more 'liberal' views on speed limits. Their driving wouldn't have been any safer if they had chosen to comply with speed limits.