Breaking the speed limit whilst overtaking

[jcochrane]

Indeed. And the counter to that is that it's particularly odd that this obsession with numbers on a stick has anything to do with safety. For a while the government even advertised the idea that it was perfectly acceptable to run over children so long as you weren't speeding when you did so.

(My underlining.)

That's a bit far isn't it?


I know exactly which advert you mean and I really think you're reading too far into it, the majority of 'simpleton' drivers wouldn't think what you've typed.

Dom

Unfortunately not, Dom. Many of us here feel these campaigns give out the wrong message. They subtly imply that not exceeding a speed limit is good safe driving. Which it is not, it can be downright dangerous.

The message should be to reduce speed to match the circumstances irrespective of the posted limit. On the flip side, a posted speed is not necessarily the maximum safe speed it could be higher or it could be lower.

The message should be that it's the use of speed that is important and is either safe or not. From a safety standpoint, it might be argued, that posted limits could sometimes be misleading resulting in drivers being lulled into a sense of security and not slowing enough.

On the question of exceeding a speed limit whilst overtaking my view would be, if following a slower moving vehicle, say 50/55mph in a 60 limit. Then the options would be to either abort any thought of an overtake or overtake with the knowledge that the speed limit would most likely be exceeded on grounds of safety. That choice is up to the individual. To repeat what has already been said that if the choice is to follow then back off and leave a good wide gap for those wishing to overtake.

Now if I were asked what I would choose.....

[dombooth]

Indeed. And the counter to that is that it's particularly odd that this obsession with numbers on a stick has anything to do with safety. For a while the government even advertised the idea that it was perfectly acceptable to run over children so long as you weren't speeding when you did so.

(My underlining.)

That's a bit far isn't it?


I know exactly which advert you mean and I really think you're reading too far into it, the majority of 'simpleton' drivers wouldn't think what you've typed.

Dom

Unfortunately not, Dom. Many of us here feel these campaigns give out the wrong message. They subtly imply that not exceeding a speed limit is good safe driving. Which it is not, it can be downright dangerous.

The message should be to reduce speed to match the circumstances irrespective of the posted limit. On the flip side, a posted speed is not necessarily the maximum safe speed it could be higher or it could be lower.

The message should be that it's the use of speed that is important and is either safe or not. From a safety standpoint, it might be argued, that posted limits could sometimes be misleading resulting in drivers being lulled into a sense of security and not slowing enough.

On the question of exceeding a speed limit whilst overtaking my view would be, if following a slower moving vehicle, say 50/55mph in a 60 limit. Then the options would be to either abort any thought of an overtake or overtake with the knowledge that the speed limit would most likely be exceeded on grounds of safety. That choice is up to the individual. To repeat what has already been said that if the choice is to follow then back off and leave a good wide gap for those wishing to overtake.

Now if I were asked what I would choose.....

(My underlining again.)

I'm talking about the everyday driver, not us though.

Dom

[jont]

I'm talking about the everyday driver, not us though.

Dom

So you think drivers who are too stupid to decide what a safe speed is will understand the more complex issues the advert is trying to convey rather than taking away the simple message that blindly obeying the speedlimit is safe?

[dombooth]

I'm talking about the everyday driver, not us though.

Dom

So you think drivers who are too stupid to decide what a safe speed is will understand the more complex issues the advert is trying to convey rather than taking away the simple message that blindly obeying the speedlimit is safe?

It's a simple advert designed for the average driver, what more can be said?

I get constantly fed up with other drivers (mainly the german car variety) sticking to my exhaust, these type of drivers wouldn't take a bit of notice to it anyway.

Dom

[GJD]

Unfortunately not, Dom. Many of us here feel these campaigns give out the wrong message. They subtly imply that not exceeding a speed limit is good safe driving. Which it is not, it can be downright dangerous.

(My underlining again.)

I'm talking about the everyday driver, not us though.

To clarify what I think jcochrane's point was: many of us here feel that these campaigns give out the wrong message to all drivers.

[dombooth]

Unfortunately not, Dom. Many of us here feel these campaigns give out the wrong message. They subtly imply that not exceeding a speed limit is good safe driving. Which it is not, it can be downright dangerous.

(My underlining again.)

I'm talking about the everyday driver, not us though.

To clarify what I think jcochrane's point was: many of us here feel that these campaigns give out the wrong message to all drivers.

The message was - don't speed - ..? What would you like them to say? Blast through at 50?

Dom

[kfae8959]

I'm afraid you've missed the point. As I understand it, what's being said is that the only person who can decide what is safe in any given situation is the driver who's dealing with it. The suggestion that safety can be guaranteed by following rules - whether while overtaking or while driving though streets where children may be playing - is pernicious, and undermines the key commitment of the "advanced" driving organisations to equip drivers with the skill they need to make good, safe driving decisions.

David

[dombooth]

I'm afraid you've missed the point. As I understand it, what's being said is that the only person who can decide what is safe in any given situation is the driver who's dealing with it. The suggestion that safety can be guaranteed by following rules - whether while overtaking or while driving though streets where children may be playing - is pernicious, and undermines the key commitment of the "advanced" driving organisations to equip drivers with the skill they need to make good, safe driving decisions.

David

I don't think I've missed the point at all really.

For drivers that are unable/incompetant to decide what speed etc is safe at a particular instance is it not better for them to be driving at 30 instead of 40?

Dom

[jameslb101]

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?

This seems to be the Advanced Drivers excuse every time the law is mentioned..

Dom

And it's also a question you still haven't answered. Or would doing so undermine your own line of argument?

[dombooth]

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?

This seems to be the Advanced Drivers excuse every time the law is mentioned..

Dom

And it's also a question you still haven't answered. Or would doing so undermine your own line of argument?

"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).

Dom

[jcochrane]

I'm afraid you've missed the point. As I understand it, what's being said is that the only person who can decide what is safe in any given situation is the driver who's dealing with it. The suggestion that safety can be guaranteed by following rules - whether while overtaking or while driving though streets where children may be playing - is pernicious, and undermines the key commitment of the "advanced" driving organisations to equip drivers with the skill they need to make good, safe driving decisions.

David

I don't think I've missed the point at all really.

For drivers that are unable/incompetant to decide what speed etc is safe at a particular instance is it not better for them to be driving at 30 instead of 40?

Dom

Your reply indicates you are still missing the point. If a driver is "unable/incompetent to decide what speed etc is safe" imposing a 30 limit instead of 40 does not make their driving safe. That is the very thinking we have been arguing against. Circumstances on any section of road vary from moment to moment requiring reassessment and variation of speed. [Not forgetting position and gear.] There is not one set speed that if not exceeded will be safe for a stretch of road at all times in all conditions.

Better to train, re-educate etc.

In answer to your question..If a driver is genuinely "unable/incompetent" to learn then why have they been allowed to have a driver's licence. For such drivers why stop at 30 why not 5 or 10 or even better 0. An arbitrary speed limit is no answer. Such a person should not be driving.

If drivers are able/competent to learn then they need training to make the right decisions to become safer.

[dombooth]

I'm afraid you've missed the point. As I understand it, what's being said is that the only person who can decide what is safe in any given situation is the driver who's dealing with it. The suggestion that safety can be guaranteed by following rules - whether while overtaking or while driving though streets where children may be playing - is pernicious, and undermines the key commitment of the "advanced" driving organisations to equip drivers with the skill they need to make good, safe driving decisions.

David

I don't think I've missed the point at all really.

For drivers that are unable/incompetant to decide what speed etc is safe at a particular instance is it not better for them to be driving at 30 instead of 40?

Dom

Your reply indicates you are still missing the point. If a driver is "unable/incompetent to decide what speed etc is safe" imposing a 30 limit instead of 40 does not make their driving safe. That is the very thinking we have been arguing against. Circumstances on any section of road vary from moment to moment requiring reassessment and variation of speed. [Not forgetting position and gear.] There is not one set speed that if not exceeded will be safe for a stretch of road at all times in all conditions.

Better to train, re-educate etc.

In answer to your question..If a driver is genuinely "unable/incompetent" to learn then why have they been allowed to have a driver's licence. For such drivers why stop at 30 why not 5 or 10 or even better 0. An arbitrary speed limit is no answer. Such a person should not be driving.

If drivers are able/competent to learn then they need training to become safer.

While it doesn't make their driving safe, it makes anything they happen to hit less affected. Put it this way, would you rather hit something at 40 or 30? (Not at all isn't an option. ).

The amount of times I've asked my dad to 'slow down', 'get out of the car infront's exhaust' etc is uncountable! I really hate having to get in the car with him driving sometimes..

Dom

[jcochrane]

While it doesn't make their driving safe, it makes anything they happen to hit less affected. Put it this way, would you rather hit something at 40 or 30? (Not at all isn't an option. ).

The amount of times I've asked my dad to 'slow down', 'get out of the car infront's exhaust' etc is uncountable! I really hate having to get in the car with him driving sometimes..

Dom

Why should "not at all" not be an option for goodness sake. That's where training comes in.

If I was the one being hit then I'd rather not be hit at all at any speed. Even if I get only slightly bumped, loose my balance and hit my head on the ground I could still be killed.

I'd rather the driver was trained in the use of speed so as not to hit me in the first place.

[dombooth]

While it doesn't make their driving safe, it makes anything they happen to hit less affected. Put it this way, would you rather hit something at 40 or 30? (Not at all isn't an option. ).

The amount of times I've asked my dad to 'slow down', 'get out of the car infront's exhaust' etc is uncountable! I really hate having to get in the car with him driving sometimes..

Dom

If I was the one being hit then I'd rather not be hit at all at any speed. Even if I get only slightly bumped, loose my balance and hit my head on the ground I could still be killed.

I'd rather the driver was trained in the use of speed so as not to hit me in the first place.

Did you read what I put?

This training costs money, something which a lot of people don't have at the moment.

Dom

[Kevin]

During a workplace driving assessment with an IAM assessor I entered into a discussion about speed limits. I asked him: if all speed limits were removed overnight, did he think he would still be just a safe a driver. To my surprise he replied that he did not think he would be as safe a driver without speed limits.

It's been said on here, and I think rightly, that an advanced driver sets his speed according to the hazards that are present or potentially present. This may be lower than the posted speed limit, it may be higher. For an IAM assessor to say that he needs posted speed limits in order to assist him in staying safe (or safer) seems a bit shocking.

Maybe he meant that the fact a posted speed limit could be seen coming up in the distance possibly alerted him to a stretch of road containing more hazards, but that's not impression I got.

I think this ties in with the Government adverts about knocking down children. The impression is that as long as you're sticking to the speed limit you're ok. If you hit a child, as long as you're not going too fast, your conscience is clear. No it's not!

It would be an interesting experiment (although not one that's ever going to happen) to remove all speed limits, but place greater accountability on drivers' actions when things go wrong.