Good.
![Very Happy :D](./images/smilies/icon_biggrin.gif)
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.
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.
dombooth wrote:Sad person.![]()
dombooth wrote:I think we've been reading the posts/thread differently then. (Unless someone's been editing..)
dombooth wrote:I wasn't but speeding whilst overtaking is still against the law.
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.
jont wrote:Oh god /bangs head and waits for the thread to start going round in circles again.
GJD wrote:dombooth wrote:Sad person.![]()
Hmmm... you're probably right.
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.
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.
Directly linking speed limits with safety undermines basic principles of AD which is one reason you are getting such a negative response.
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.
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.
chriskay wrote:Then why didn't you make that clear earlier, instead of implying it was some sort of moral/ethical objection?
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
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
Return to Advanced Driving Forum
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests