ADUK Archive

When I drive, i concentrate, I am acutely aware of other drivers, I have a good level of car control, my eyes are always on main beam, I always observe effectively, I'm considerate to other road users including vulnerable road users, I drop well below the speed limit when required...such as outside a busy school, road works etc.

Then, whilst on a relatively quiet 30 limit road, no pedestrians, I look down to glimpse my speed, which is sitting around 37mph..

I'm a a bad driver? Because I "speed" do all the other elements in paragraph one become void? People can "see" I am speeding, but have no real tangible evidence of all the other good stuff I do...

Does anyone else feel this frustration..?

In the eyes of the law, you are speeding and thus breaking the law, for which there is a punishment.

However, you can speed, and yes - still be an excellent driver. The law is black and white, real life is very much grey!
You can also speed and be a bad driver too I hasten to add! You can equally drive well within the speed limit and be an awful, dangerous driver...

There are many element that makes a good driver - not just speed..

paul adams wrote:Does anyone else feel this frustration..?

Yes. But I wish all those that did would write to their local politicians and MPs telling them that road safety by proxy of number on a stick is not a good policy. Until politicians think it will cost them votes, they'll carry on listening to the "something must be done, think of the children" brigade and speed enforcement and speed limit reduction is an excellent way to pacify them.

jont wrote:

paul adams wrote:Does anyone else feel this frustration..?

Yes. But I wish all those that did would write to their local politicians and MPs telling them that road safety by proxy of number on a stick is not a good policy. Until politicians think it will cost them votes, they'll carry on listening to the "something must be done, think of the children" brigade and speed enforcement and speed limit reduction is an excellent way to pacify them.

It's always such a knee-jerk/politically correct/may I even say a cliche to "think of the children" as you say it. Of course its vital to look out for children, as it is for everyone else on the road, but the fact that is I do find it annoying, to myself that how safe you are, is based on speed...

Take these two comments:

A. "I'm not really concentrating that much at the moment, but at least i'm keeping to the speed limit"

or

B. "I'm aware I'm speeding a little, but I'm really concentrating"

I bet most would see point A as more "socially" acceptable to do, although I feel point B is probably safer....

paul adams wrote:
It's always such a knee-jerk/politically correct/may I even say a cliche to "think of the children" as you say it. Of course its vital to look out for children, as it is for everyone else on the road, but the fact that is I do find it annoying, to myself that how safe you are, is based on speed...

Take these two comments:

A. "I'm not really concentrating that much at the moment, but at least i'm keeping to the speed limit"

or

B. "I'm aware I'm speeding a little, but I'm really concentrating"

I bet most would see point A as more "socially" acceptable to do, although I feel point B is probably safer....

If we had no rules then people who would not speed considerately would just speed all the time. The rules are there for the vast majority of people who do not use their brains when driving, pay no attention to potential hazards and most the time would not be able to recall their journey in any detail.

40mph past a school at 2am is obviously less dangerous than 30mph at 8:50am on a school day, but leave that decision to the vast majority and they would be doing 40mph at 8:50am regardless!

Speed does not kill, just inappropriate speed.

arrivealive wrote:If we had no rules then people who would not speed considerately would just speed all the time.

Perhaps you'd like another stab at what you're trying to express because, honestly, as written, it sounds a bit garbled.

arrivealive wrote:The rules are there for the vast majority of people who do not use their brains when driving, pay no attention to potential hazards and most the time would not be able to recall their journey in any detail.

I think, some years ago, it was more that speed limits gave an indication to general hazard density. These days some planning numpties seem intent on micro-managing road users through the use of inappropriately low and/or frequently changing speed limits, which easily leads to the mindset of "I'm keeping to the speed limit therefore I'm driving safely" which shouldn't be the outcome that society desires.

The speed at which I drive is secondary to how safely I drive at any given speed. Focussing on speed alone, will always give false results.

paul adams wrote:Then, whilst on a relatively quiet 30 limit road, no pedestrians, I look down to glimpse my speed, which is sitting around 37mph..

I'm a a bad driver? Because I "speed" do all the other elements in paragraph one become void?

Of course not, but it doesn't automatically get you off the hook either.

I think if you look at your speedometer and find the value to be unexpected, either against your expectation of what it would be or what you would aim for in terms of the driver you want to be, then you've made a mistake that's worth thinking about.

I think from an advanced driving PoV, this remains the case no matter what you may feel about the focus on speed and speed limits. If you were set loose on an empty airfield, it'd still be an important element of what you're doing with the car.

In other words, explicitly choosing to drive at 37mph in a 30 because the conditions merit it is quite a different thing to simply discovering you're going at 37mph because you weren't being careful with your right foot.

maybe I should have worded it better - I would know I was above the speed limit, as opposed to suddenly realising I was speeding....

The issue being not wanting to suddenly drop to 30, yet feel a little bad about such...

It appears that you are seeking approval for the efforts you are making to drive safely as a prerequisite for any criticism of your failure to comply with the regulations. I think it is asking too much for others to assess your driving in the way you have nearing in mind they will have no idea whether or not you are concentrating or have your vision 'on main beam'.

Unless you do something obviously inappropriate others have only non - compliance to criticise. I think you are expecting too much.

How would you feel if you saw someone drive through a red light with no obvious risk or heard that someone was driving without insurance without knowing anything about their driving?

MGF wrote:It appears that you are seeking approval for the efforts you are making to drive safely as a prerequisite for any criticism of your failure to comply with the regulations. I think it is asking too much for others to assess your driving in the way you have nearing in mind they will have no idea whether or not you are concentrating or have your vision 'on main beam'.

Unless you do something obviously inappropriate others have only non - compliance to criticise. I think you are expecting too much.

How would you feel if you saw someone drive through a red light with no obvious risk or heard that someone was driving without insurance without knowing anything about their driving?

Hummmm, good point

MGF wrote:Unless you do something obviously inappropriate others have only non - compliance to criticise. I think you are expecting too much.

So when non-compliance is the norm, is enforcement reasonable?

How long would you sit at some temporary lights for apparently stuck on red before deciding to ignore them?

If the red lights were obscured by scenery and there's nothing obvious to suggest a set of traffic light controls, is it reasonable if you don't see them and don't comply?

Laws are written for 'populations' not for individuals - so there's no point in getting frustrated by them ( though I do occasionally).There's also an element of loosing some totally unimportant personal freedoms so the sake of a bigger picture.

But I look to keep to 30 max in a 30 zone. It's not always about what you can see in this situation. ... If you had said the 70 limit was too low in principle then I'd agree. The danger (I include me) is in thinking that speed is a driving virtue.

Ian

The question of speed limits, to me, is a bit different. There is such a thing is a speed (actully, a finite range of speeds) that is suitable to the conditions.

We mainly define this speed as allowing us to safely stop well short of the road section seen to be clear, while not slowing down to much beyond what is satisfactory to this rule, as to avoid unnaturally and irregularly slow speeds.

With national speed limits, the question is whether the quoted figure falls within the range of suitable speed for reasonably favorable conditions, thereby providing some rule of thumb as to maximum speed.

In main streets on towns, it generally does. On narrow streets it's generally too high, there being very few 20mph zones down here anyway.

On dual carriageways it is potentialy a bit too low, and on motorways obviously so, but not by a whole too much, to me at least.

jont wrote:

MGF wrote:Unless you do something obviously inappropriate others have only non - compliance to criticise. I think you are expecting too much.

So when non-compliance is the norm, is enforcement reasonable?

How long would you sit at some temporary lights for apparently stuck on red before deciding to ignore them?

If the red lights were obscured by scenery and there's nothing obvious to suggest a set of traffic light controls, is it reasonable if you don't see them and don't comply?

Assuming these aren't rhetorical questions and working backwards.

It is not unlawful to drive through a concealed red light. Neither is it unreasonable, in my view.

Your second question can be answered from recent experience. Roadworks one lane closed, light controlled, 70 odd metres long with a good view of oncoming traffic. I moved through a red light after two failed green phases.

Enforcement needs to be proportionate to be reasonable. although non-compliance is not unusual partial compliance at least is normal. A sliding scale of response is needed and that is what we have with the 10%+2, FP, Court appearance. Whether or not that scale is proportionate is a matter of opinion but I don't think it is unreasonable.