Disregard of Speed Limits

[drivingsteve]

The questions is -- what else are you trying to achieve whilst driving? ie what is your goal that you are having to compromise because you will moderate it for safety?

For some people that might be whistling the national anthem. For them, advanced driving will be about knowing when to stop whistling the tricky bit and concentrate on traffic, taking appropriate breaths and so on.

For others it might be about completing a journey as quickly as possible.

For you it seem to be keeping a clean licence.

Good question. I think my objectives, and what gives me satisfaction in my driving with a high level of accuracy and technical correctness, which includes driving within the law. Completing a journey with the feeling that I've achieved this is very rewarding for me.

However, in a situation where someone is behind me, clearly wanting to go faster and can't overtake, I am not prepared to risk points on my license and damage my relatively clean history to help him do so. In the interests of safety, I'd be more inclined to very gradually reduce my speed on the basis that being tailgated at 60mph (for example) is more dangerous than being tailgated at 50mph.

And you're going to be easier to overtake at 50 than 60 too.

Another thing you're unlikely to find much support for here is any suggestion that you should allow yourself to be forced into driving faster than you are comfortable with.

That's very true, and often after gradually reducing my speed I find moving slightly towards the edge of the road at a well timed opportunity generally helps the following driver on his way. It doesn't mean I condone his speeding and wish to assist, but I don't see any gain in aggravating someone by unnecessarily holding them up and causing a dangerous situation for myself. The flip-side of this is that I won't exceed speed limits for them, and its good to hear I would largely have people's support with this philosophy.

[gannet]

and its good to hear I would largely have people's support with this philosophy.

You will hear many of us here say 'Drive your own drive' ie don't get caught up in anything others are doing. React to them safely and as best you can but don't get involved and let it be.

[7db]

Good question. I think my objectives, and what gives me satisfaction in my driving with a high level of accuracy and technical correctness, which includes driving within the law. Completing a journey with the feeling that I've achieved this is very rewarding for me.

The satisfaction comes from managing the compromise. The question is what are the conflicting sides that are being compromised. An aim of technical accuracy and correctness is rarely in conflict with the Golden Rule. Going fast is.

If you can identify what it is that you are managing that is in conflict then that makes technique easier to identify.

[Horse]

If lowering some speed limits increases safety and also has the side-effect of reducing our envirinmental impact, then that's a win-win situation, isn't it?

The environmental aspect ... thinking drivers who wish to achieve better economy just need to use lower average and peak speeds, while trying to keep the average speed as near as possible to the peak speed, while also minimising braking of any kind.

Won't a lower maximum speed be beneficial from reduced aerodynamic drag?

[WhoseGeneration]

It's almost as if some join here and then, not long after, try to attempt to, somehow, tempt members to provide evidence of a non PC attitude to current beliefs. I'm thinking about attitudes to speed limits and "environmental" concerns.
Perhaps I'm too tuned into how things work but I wouldn't want to think that there were some wanting to discredit ADUK.

[ericonabike]

As a newcomer to ADUK, I found this thread fascinating. Especially the comment that 'Adhering to speed limits has little or nothing to do with advanced driving'. And the opposition to the 20mph limits in built-up areas as recommended by BRAKE and others.

To take the first argument: this seems to hark back to a 'golden age' of motoring, before speed limits were introduced and when gentlemen were expected to regulate themselves accordingly. Sadly a lot of them did not, and the ensuing carnage caused speed limits to be introduced. Along with traffic lights, pedestrian crossings, and all the other elements that restrict individual driving freedom. Whilst also contributing to a reduction in road deaths and casualties. Like it or not, speed limits do save lives. Doubtless everyone on this forum believes they could exceed them at their own discretion whilst still driving safely. Sadly, so does everyone else - which is why they are enforced.

The 20 mph limits - whyever not? I live on a cul de sac, where the difference between driving at 30 or 20 mph would mean a difference of perhaps 10 seconds on the journey time. But it literally means the difference between life or death if a child runs into the road. And the atmosphere of a street changes dramatically once speed goes down to 20 mph. We really ought to get beyond the idea that increased journey times, even when the difference can be measured in seconds rather than minutes, are to be avoided whatever the cost.

[7db]

Hi Erica -- I think the first of those quotes is part of one of mine. The full quote was:-

"Adhering to speed limits has little or nothing to do with advanced driving. Adapting to reality and making your and everyone elses journey safer does."

The point being that advanced driving hangs almost entirely on the Golden Rule: being able to stop in the distance that you can see to be clear and reasonably expect to remain so. There is a lot of nuance on top of that.

It's perfectly possible to drive in an "advanced fashion" and not adhere 100% to the speed limits. It is also perfectly possible to adhere to the speed limits and not drive at all in an "advanced fashion". The two are disjoint. If one were an essential part of the other then this would not be the case. That is what I mean in my quote. I'm sure you didn't mean to abbreviate and misinterpret it. I do hope that clarifies.

[Gareth]

Won't a lower maximum speed be beneficial from reduced aerodynamic drag?

I don't remember the exact figures, and don't have time to look them up right now as I'm meant to be getting ready for the commute, but I think that somewhere over about 45-50 mph aerodynamic drag becomes the most significant factor, (for many/most? cars).

[Gareth]

I thought it was an Eric rather than an Erica ...

It's perfectly possible to drive in an "advanced fashion" and not adhere 100% to the speed limits. It is also perfectly possible to adhere to the speed limits and not drive at all in an "advanced fashion". The two are disjoint. If one were an essential part of the other then this would not be the case.

I think a lot of people start in advanced driving thinking that they just need to precisely follow a number of rules, rather than understanding that being thinking drivers is the core of what is required. It takes some serious thinking to understand what part is really really important and what is primarily societal fluff.

[PeterE]

I think a lot of people start in advanced driving thinking that they just need to precisely follow a number of rules, rather than understanding that being thinking drivers is the core of what is required.

See current sig.

[GJD]

The 20 mph limits - whyever not? I live on a cul de sac, where the difference between driving at 30 or 20 mph would mean a difference of perhaps 10 seconds on the journey time. But it literally means the difference between life or death if a child runs into the road. And the atmosphere of a street changes dramatically once speed goes down to 20 mph. We really ought to get beyond the idea that increased journey times, even when the difference can be measured in seconds rather than minutes, are to be avoided whatever the cost.

I think it's the spectacular missing of the point that bothers people.

I don't want people who drive on my cul de sac to be diverting serious attention from following the Golden Rule by worrying about their speedometers. I don't want people who would seek to delegate their responsibility for driving sufficiently slowly to other people or to a number on a stick to be allowed to drive on my cul de sac at all.

It shouldn't matter to your driving whether the speed limit is 30 or 20. Or 10. Or 40. The message I want to hear, louder and clearer than all other messages, from government and from anyone who claims to be promoting road safety, is that if the difference between a 40mph limit and a 10mph limit has any noticeable impact on how much of a danger you are, you are doing something very, very wrong.

[drivingsteve]

Doubtless everyone on this forum believes they could exceed them at their own discretion whilst still driving safely. Sadly, so does everyone else - which is why they are enforced.

The 20 mph limits - whyever not? ... We really ought to get beyond the idea that increased journey times, even when the difference can be measured in seconds rather than minutes, are to be avoided whatever the cost.

Eric's post above, and particuarly the two extracts I have quoted here, are probably the most sensible remarks I've read on this forum to date. Very well said!

I don't want people who drive on my cul de sac to be diverting serious attention from following the Golden Rule by worrying about their speedometers.

Any driver, let alone one proclaiming to be "advanced" should be quite capable of following the golden rule AND staying within a legal speed limit.

[GJD]

I don't want people who drive on my cul de sac to be diverting serious attention from following the Golden Rule by worrying about their speedometers.

Any driver, let alone one proclaiming to be "advanced" should be quite capable of following the golden rule AND staying within a legal speed limit.

As the situation gets more complex, and 7db's national anthem whistler needs to stop whistling the tricky bit and concentrate on traffic, it is vital that any driver, let alone one proclaiming to be advanced, should not lose crystal clear sight of which of those two objectives is more important.

[MrToad]

I think it's the spectacular missing of the point that bothers people.

Indeed - and on occasions like this I am reminded of the Bard, when he wrote:

There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Steve, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

[drivingsteve]

I don't want people who drive on my cul de sac to be diverting serious attention from following the Golden Rule by worrying about their speedometers.

Any driver, let alone one proclaiming to be "advanced" should be quite capable of following the golden rule AND staying within a legal speed limit.

As the situation gets more complex, and 7db's national anthem whistler needs to stop whistling the tricky bit and concentrate on traffic, it is vital that any driver, let alone one proclaiming to be advanced, should not lose crystal clear sight of which of those two objectives is more important.

This doesn't make sense. What you're implying is that if a situation get's tricky, you should be willing to divert your attention away from speed limits and focus on more immediate hazards. Fair enough, however...

Providing you're driving within the speed limit to start with, why would you accelerate when a potential hazard appears? You wouldn't, so there should be no excuse for exceeding the speed limit, even when concentrating of other factors.