ADUK Archive

Good.

dombooth wrote:

jameslb101 wrote:

dombooth wrote: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?

Link to this thread?

*cough* I was taking the mick, it's this thread.
As I said earlier, people have said they don't comply with them but I'm not going searching through the pages too find it.

I must be more bored than you today. I've had a look back through the whole thread .

Contrary to the thread title, since around page 6 the discussion has been in the context of all aspects of driving, not just overtaking, and has been around road safety and the difference between the speed limit and an appropriate speed for the conditions. In this context, nobody has said that they drive above the speed limit when conditions allow. When I read your comments that I've quoted above, I assumed that that was the context you were referring to. Perhaps I was wrong in that assumption?

In the narrower context of the original thread subject, the specific case of overtaking, some people have said that they would be prepared to temporarily exceed the speed limit. But as I say, I didn't get the impression you were limiting your comments to that context.

GJD wrote:

dombooth wrote:

jameslb101 wrote:Link to this thread?

*cough* I was taking the mick, it's this thread.
As I said earlier, people have said they don't comply with them but I'm not going searching through the pages too find it.

I must be more bored than you today. I've had a look back through the whole thread .

Contrary to the thread title, since around page 6 the discussion has been in the context of all aspects of driving, not just overtaking, and has been around road safety and the difference between the speed limit and an appropriate speed for the conditions. In this context, nobody has said that they drive above the speed limit when conditions allow. When I read your comments that I've quoted above, I assumed that that was the context you were referring to. Perhaps I was wrong in that assumption?

In the narrower context of the original thread subject, the specific case of overtaking, some people have said that they would be prepared to temporarily exceed the speed limit. But as I say, I didn't get the impression you were limiting your comments to that context.

Sad person.

I think we've been reading the posts/thread differently then. (Unless someone's been editing..)

I wasn't but speeding whilst overtaking is still against the law.

Dom

dombooth wrote:Sad person.

Hmmm... you're probably right .

dombooth wrote:I think we've been reading the posts/thread differently then. (Unless someone's been editing..)

Lots of people (myself included) have brought up that opportunities to drive at a safe speed above the limit exist (I might even say abound). A lot of the same people have suggested in one way or another that they regard driving at an appropriate speed for the conditions as more important than adhering to the speed limit. Might you have inferred from that that they would choose to drive above the limit when conditions allow, or that they would advocate doing so, even though that's not what they said?

You're quite right that people could have edited their comments before my re-read-athon earlier today. I'm not sad enough to go back and check all the "last edited" dates through what is now 20 pages .

dombooth wrote:I wasn't but speeding whilst overtaking is still against the law.

It is (and nobody has said otherwise). At least some of the people who said that they would be prepared to temporarily exceed the speed limit while overtaking restricted that to a situation where they had misjudged the manoeuvre and mistakenly put themselves in a position where briefly exceeding the limit was the safest way out.

GJD wrote:

dombooth wrote:I wasn't but speeding whilst overtaking is still against the law.

It is (and nobody has said otherwise). At least some of the people who said that they would be prepared to temporarily exceed the speed limit while overtaking restricted that to a situation where they had misjudged the manoeuvre and mistakenly put themselves in a position where briefly exceeding the limit was the safest way out.

Oh god /bangs head and waits for the thread to start going round in circles again.

jont wrote:Oh god /bangs head and waits for the thread to start going round in circles again.

I hope not . If anyone feels that way inclined, I'd invite them instead to just reread the thread. Much simpler .

I was more afraid that without adding that caveat I was at risk of a deluge of accusations of misrepresenting people's views.

GJD wrote:

dombooth wrote:Sad person.

Hmmm... you're probably right .

Haha.

GJD wrote:

dombooth wrote:I think we've been reading the posts/thread differently then. (Unless someone's been editing..)

Lots of people (myself included) have brought up that opportunities to drive at a safe speed above the limit exist (I might even say abound). A lot of the same people have suggested in one way or another that they regard driving at an appropriate speed for the conditions as more important than adhering to the speed limit. Might you have inferred from that that they would choose to drive above the limit when conditions allow, or that they would advocate doing so, even though that's not what they said?

You're quite right that people could have edited their comments before my re-read-athon earlier today. I'm not sad enough to go back and check all the "last edited" dates through what is now 20 pages .

Probably yes.

GJD wrote:

dombooth wrote:I wasn't but speeding whilst overtaking is still against the law.

It is (and nobody has said otherwise). At least some of the people who said that they would be prepared to temporarily exceed the speed limit while overtaking restricted that to a situation where they had misjudged the manoeuvre and mistakenly put themselves in a position where briefly exceeding the limit was the safest way out.

Another way would be to break and slot back in behind.

Dom

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

Mindlessly driving at or within speed limits regardless of any other safety considerations is not driving safely.

However, when many of the posts on this thread are read, it is impossible to avoid the impression at one level or another that in certain quarters, lip service is given to the legal responsibilities of driving together with associated attitudes in the widest sense of the word. Some appear to favour choosing their interpretation of safe driving above everything else including in certain situations where exceeding the speed limit is quoted as the only option.

There will always be exceptions, but most cases where exceeding the speed limit is cited as the way to make something safer will have been better planned at an earlier stage as advanced drivers to avoid the situation in the first place. Maybe in arguing fine principles, we are all guilty of not putting enough caveats into our thoughts. Hence, my first paragraph in this post.

It is interesting that Dom picks up on this and other comments as a much less experienced driver than many on here and correctly, in my view, puts legal compliance higher in the pecking order of driving decisions than many on here appear to do from the impressions given by their posts.

dth wrote:It is interesting that Dom picks up on this and other comments as a much less experienced driver than many on here and correctly, in my view, puts legal compliance higher in the pecking order of driving decisions than many on here appear to do from the impressions given by their posts.

Thank you.

Dom

chriskay wrote:OK, Dom, I think we get the message that you consider breaking the speed limit as just slightly less serious than murder. Some of us think otherwise. Is your fear of detection solely motivated by the effect on your insurance premium? As a matter of interest, I've just run the exercise you proposed earlier; my premium without any conviction is £211, with an SP30 and 3 points it's £226. Age has its benefits.

Not solely but the majority yes. As the extra cost would mean stopping driving.

Exactly, and this is the reason I think most on here have a relaxed view on breaking the speed limits, because it'll not affect them a great deal.

Dom

chriskay wrote:Then why didn't you make that clear earlier, instead of implying it was some sort of moral/ethical objection?

It is also a moral/ethical objection..

Dom

dombooth wrote:And the results are:

Normal insurance quote with all details correct: £4002.47

With an SP30 (3 points and £60 fine): £5611.64

I'm sure you can all see why I'm so opposed to speeding now.

Dom

Dom, I think it's me who needs the wall to bang my head against.

As I've said before there are two separate issues here;

1) The SAFETY of exceeding speed limits (in appropriate conditions). This has been done to death but here I believe your views align with that of the general consensus of this forum. I can cite multiple examples of you doing so.

2) The LEGALITY of exceeding speed limits. As I've said nobody here has denied this point. We all accept you adhere to limits and nobody has a problem with this. We don't think of you as any less of an advanced driver for doing so.

As a younger driver myself I choose not exceed speed limits for the same reason as you - the knock on effect to my insurance premium. This doesn't mean I don't believe it's unsafe to exceed speed limits, just that I can't afford to.

Does my behaviour in this regard surprise you given my views on the matter?

Given I said I could cite examples of you agreeing that, in certain conditions, exceeding the speed limit will compromise safety, I thought I would before you asked me to.

dombooth wrote:Of course there are limits that are inappropriately low and pointless...

dombooth wrote:

jont wrote:How do you feel about roads that were formerly NSL and are now 50s or 40s? Do you feel driving at NSL on these roads previously would have been dangerous/unsafe?

"It depends.." Seriously though, some roads I drive on regularly no I didn't previously feel unsafe at all doing 60 but the law is the law and if it says 40 I will do 40 (where safe ofc).

dombooth wrote:

jont wrote:I didn't say anything about breaking the law. I asked about whether you thought that a road that has had a speed limit drop would have been dangerous/unsafe to drive at the previous (higher) limit.

In some conditions maybe it would be dangerous/unsafe yes.

dombooth wrote:Another way would be to break and slot back in behind.

Dom

Ah, at last we are back to the overtaking topic (perhaps we all know what each of us thinks about the other issue by now).

Aborting an overtake may not be that easy. One of the most dangerous things which can go wrong with an overtake is if the overtaker decides he has got it wrong, and tries to brake and slot back in behind, but at the same time the overtaker sees that there is a problem and also brakes. I am not sure what the least bad solution is - other than not to start an overtake which risks having to be aborted.

What about the situation on a motorway? The car being overtaken is travelling at about 67/68, the overtake is taking an eternity. Then in the mirrors comes flashing headlights and blue lights approaching at a fair rate of knots.
What would you do?
Regards
Brian Haddon