If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Speeding
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
Ok, so I wondered what people thought about speeding and all that. I think really, speed limits in a lot of places are innappropriate, and in my experience of friends, family and myself (anecdotal, basically), they're unenforced by the police. For example, there is a single carriageway going round the outskirts of my village which is a 40, but there aren't any pedestrian crossings, in fact it's just farms on one side, visibility is very good (you can see about half a mile down it from any point pretty much because it's a slight curve / hill), and most people go a bit faster than the 40. Except myself, because the 125 struggles to go faster 
I think, 30 in a town, going down to 20 outside schools / residential areas are good. But it's when I see clear a roads that have 40 / 50 limits on, I wonder why. The A511 nearby is 40 / 50 and I don't understand why really, whenever I've been on it it's quite empty, just has speed cameras all the way along.
On top gear, Clarkson pointed out that although since the speed cameras were implemented, there had been a downward trend in accidents, he pointed out the downward trend was not different from the trend from 20 years back. As time goes on, testing becomes more rigorous, road designs become better, car safety improves etc. etc. all to contribute towards it.
I think speed cameras are justified in a lot of places, but as a whole, why does the UK penalise speeding more than a lot of other countries? It's one of the few laws where breaking it means an automatic sentence pretty much, rather than 'innocent until proven guilty'; i.e. fixed penalty notice.
I don't agree with those that say they're a professional driver so are safe at high speeds, but I think in a lot of situations it is safe to drive a bit faster, yet the law is very very strict. I don't think there is any differentiation, in legalese, between going 35 past a school in a village at 3.30pm, and doing 65 in a 50mph dual carriageway at 9pm. :chin:
What are your thoughts?
I think, 30 in a town, going down to 20 outside schools / residential areas are good. But it's when I see clear a roads that have 40 / 50 limits on, I wonder why. The A511 nearby is 40 / 50 and I don't understand why really, whenever I've been on it it's quite empty, just has speed cameras all the way along.
On top gear, Clarkson pointed out that although since the speed cameras were implemented, there had been a downward trend in accidents, he pointed out the downward trend was not different from the trend from 20 years back. As time goes on, testing becomes more rigorous, road designs become better, car safety improves etc. etc. all to contribute towards it.
I think speed cameras are justified in a lot of places, but as a whole, why does the UK penalise speeding more than a lot of other countries? It's one of the few laws where breaking it means an automatic sentence pretty much, rather than 'innocent until proven guilty'; i.e. fixed penalty notice.
I don't agree with those that say they're a professional driver so are safe at high speeds, but I think in a lot of situations it is safe to drive a bit faster, yet the law is very very strict. I don't think there is any differentiation, in legalese, between going 35 past a school in a village at 3.30pm, and doing 65 in a 50mph dual carriageway at 9pm. :chin:
What are your thoughts?
0
Comments
Doing 29mph on a small city street with lots of pedestrians about is perfectly legal yet can be dangerous and wrong.
Doing 80mph on a clear motorway in good weather is illegal yet completely safe and not wrong or irresponsible.
Most speed limits are there for a reason, but the rationale for installing speed cameras is skewed- i.e. it can only be done if someone has been killed. Police should be allowed to put cameras anywhere they want if the residents demand it, and it would make a big difference about urban speeding. Urban speeding is the big problem, and more speed cameras in urban areas is something I would support.
I'd agree though, for most modern cars there really isnt any reason why you cant do 80mph on an empty motorway (not that they are ever empty around London).
I've been to a lot of accidents where people have seen what they thought was a long, clear road and had a horrific accident.
2 Christmas's ago I was on duty on Christmas eve. We got sent to a job where 2 men had been jumping in front of traffic on a long, straight, clear road with a 60mph limit. One of them died, the driver of the car had no idea whatsever that some drunken idiot had picked that very night to play chicken with cars. On the way to that we came across another accident where a young girl, VERY inexperienced had decided to overtake a car that was already doing 60. She overtook, no problem. Pulled back in too sharply, did a 360 degree spin and crashed into a electrricity pylon, breaking her spine. Luckily she was ok a few months later, until she was summonsed to court....
Both people (obviously) put their own lives in jeopardy, and ours. I only found out after i'd finished doing first aid that the wires lying at my feet were still live and had 15,000 volts going through them, that if one of them had sparked no doubt the fluids coming out the car would have caught fire, not to mention if someone had stepped on them.
Lots of people think the law is too strict in lots of circumstances, but I can tell you now, people die driving at the current limits because they can't drive, they're too impatient or just unlucky. Raising the limits, or abandoning them altogether would be foolish, and just raise the numbers of people killed.
When you're on the road with the 40 limit, think to yourself what might happen if a farm animal, or even a pheasant ran out in front of you. How would you react, would you even have time to react? Now imagine that same scenario at 60mph and see if you come to the same conclusions.
In my case, you would brake as it is a single carriageway - but surely the same holds true for any single carriageway road? I'm not sure why there would be a farm animal though, there are barley fields I think (or some kind of grass). There is a small hazard on it towards the top, where kids take a shortcut across the field so have to cross, but literally there is so much visibility, you could stand and could see the car coming at 40 about 30 - 40 seconds before it reached you.
I mean, I personally don't object to the speed limit, I'm a resident in the area and just don't understand why it's that way. Also, on the A511, I can understand why - the dual carriageway goes through villages where the speed limit goes to 40 (but it has those steel barriers on either side, limiting danger to residents). But inbetween where it is just woodland, the limit only goes up to 50 and they have spammed speed cameras all the way along.
I didn't realise this debate had come up earlier, oops! I think there isn't a great deal of public confidence in speed cameras and in general the way the speed limits are set up in areas, and think the government would do well to have a look at how the system works fundamentally.
Barley fields, again you could have dogs, pheasants just run out into the road.
You say you'd brake, but how quickly could you? I've got a Sport Focus with 4 sets of disc brakes, and it still takes me a fair distance to stop in an emergency, and that's when i'm "testing" or when I know what to expect. If something runs out in front of you, you'll either not brake in time or swerve to avoid it.
What happens if your driving normally and a car coming towards you loses control? What happens if they're driving a Renault and the bonnet just flies open? If they're keeping to the limit, not very much. If they were speeding, or you were speeding the results could be catastrophic.
Long, straight roads are just as dangerous as bendy, wet ones. Driver apathy sets in (as you've just shown) and thinking nothing is going to happen, the driver loses concentration and starts doing something else. We all do it. But on bendy roads you're more likely to keep slower and remain constantly alert.
As for speed cameras, i'd prefer traffic patrols instead.
And I would say I'd prefer traffic patrols, but it's easier to avoid speed cameras tbh.
Point is modern cars are indescribably safer and more efficient at braking than those around 4 decades ago. The motorway limit of 70mph is sad joke. As indeed are some dual carriageway roads with no built up areas around them and which have a speed of 40mph.
In urban areas, dangerous stretches of road or accident blackspots strict limits are entirely justified though.
I think WhoWhere's done a great explanation of why the speed limits are what they are etc and so I won't go over anything that's already been said.
In answer to your question about similar roads, have you looked into the history of the road around where you live? Have there been past accidents there, etc? You also mention the bit where kids cut across the road - like you said, people can see the cars coming if they look but, very often, children don't. It's fun to play with cars apparently!!
There's no end of times that I've been toddling along at 70 on a motorway, two chevrons away from the car in front of me, when they've suddenly realised that they want to come off at the next junction. Instead of indicating and speeding up slightly to pull in front of the car that they appeared to be overtaking OR accepting that they've missed the junction, they've just rammed their foot on the brake, going from 70 down to about 30, and therefore caused me to do the same ... and then the idiot that's tailgating behind me has to do the same etc etc. It's clear to see what would happen if people were driving faster!!!
I don't know if whowhere agrees, but I was speaking to a PC who was 'special branch' whatever that means, and he thought traffic cops, in general, were arses, and that when he goes out with his mates (bikers) they speed but only when it's safe to do so.
There's a point actually, there's a bendy road near to us that is 60, but there are blind corners every 50 / 60 metres, lots of birds nearby (swans and such, could wander onto the road), often leaves / crap on the road, and also on one occasion, there were cows on the road! I think unless you're mental though, you wouldn't do 60, as it's quite a narrow road and there is no white line in the middle. Psychological thing probably, but I don't think many would push it.
I think one possible reason the road nearby is only a 40, is to prevent cars going fast quickly incase they are noisy. But then again, we're right next to the M1, which is a continuous drone at my house, so I can't imagine it would be that.
I don't know, it makes sense in some places, but tbh, it just seems a bit random at times.
Do you think it is a coincidence that all motorways in Europe (with the notable exception of rural motorways in Germany) have a speed limit of about 70mph?
I don't. I think 70mph is a fast enough speed limit, and that people who need to drive faster should set off from home earlier. With a 70mph limit most drivers will do 75-80mph, which is safe, but with an 80mph speed limit most drivers will do 90mph-95mph, which clearly is not.
The only two things I'd say would be:
- why is 90 - 95 so much more clearly dangerous than 80? I don't drive, so honestly don't know (my bike never went that fast!
- surely the speed limit should be respected more, if it is 80 then people should do 70 - 75 and know they are going to get their bollocks crushed if they go over. In the current state of affairs, even PCs think 'its ok' to go over the speed limit. Heck, even my driving instructor said 'for your test you can't go above 70, but in real life yea, as long as it's safe then everyone does'.
I don't know, it would be nice if the law was more in line with the reality.
a) They weren't paying enough attention
b) They weren't thinking far enough ahead and
c) The person pulling out / already in front of them is going a lot slower than they are.
Now, that's reasonably limited because not everyone bombs down the motorway in their 350z doing 120, but more people would if the limits were higher.
Variable limits on the motorway are clearly the way foraward.
There is no reason why on a clear bit of motorway, in good conditions you shouldn't be able to do a ton.
Other times when the conditions are shit limits should be set well below 70.
The speed restrictions for vans are outdated too. You can do 70 on dual carriageway in a clapped out old Nova, but have to stay at 60 in a top of the range Vito. It's stupid.
inner cities need less and better positioned cameras in areas where accidents occur
the problem with speed limits is that they neglect driver judgement & assume the weather conditions for you, if its hailstone or snowing theres noway i'd do 70 on a motorway - even the variable limts aren't that great from my experiences
Just in my experience I've had someone try to overtake me when a truck was coming the other way, I've had someone bomb past me during a cloudburst and then wonder why they aquaplaned, and I've had some blonde bitch in a Mondeo overtake me with two wheels on the grass as I was in the middle of overtaking a HGV.
Changing the limits will just mean that people will regularly do 100mph instead of 85mph.
To be fair there are very few cameras on motorways.
Speed limits are outdated, simple as that. I would welcome increasing limits in on certain roads in certain conditions but would also welcome a change in the other direction for other roads.
The law has moved with the technology. It should.
1.A 60mph that begins to suffer a large number of accidents will have the speed limit reduced. This can be temporary or permanant, it can be for the entire length of the road or just a short stretch. You'll find that a temporary speed reduction will increase the awareness levels in the driver's case, giving them something to concentrate on.
2.Are traffic cops arses? I don't think so. Are motorcyclists who regularly speed, cut people up, just because they can, then fall of killing themselves, the pillion and causing injury to other people arses, then yes they are.
3.The 70mph limit on a motorway may be based on a morris minor's braking ability, however noone here seems to remember the 2 page section in the highway code on stopping distances. At 70mph the average stopping distance based on a modern car is 96 metres, or 314 feet or 24 car lengths. That is in good weather with a maintained car. At 90mph that is over DOUBLE at 704feet At 70mph it will take you about 4 seconds, from deciding to stop, to actually stopping. At 90mph it is nearly 6 seconds. A clear difference, one that often means life and death. At those speeds as well metal takes on unusual properties, ie it warps and bends not in accordance with how it was designed.
The accidents i've been to at slow speed have always been minor, accidents i've been to where one or more people were speeding have been horrific. My first accident was a 4 car head on collision on the very site I was talking about earlier. Each car was doing 60mph when they hit, a combined speed of 120. None of the cars even braked. Luckily there was only one serious injury due to them all wearing seatbelts and having airbags.
Another one my colleagues went to, where a lady took a bend too fast resulted in her being beheaded by a branch.
It's all well and good saying it would be safer to drive faster, but the one important fact people need to remember is that the majority of people on Britain's roads are idiots, plain and simple. They either drive too fast, or too slow causing people to get impatient and overtake. On motorways people tailgate, people overtake double white lines blithely unaware of a central reservation. Raising the speed limit would just raise the bar for the idiots, instead of doing the new limit of 90 they'd see a 120 as a bit more daring.
I think that's a load of crap. I can't stand this "most drivers are idiots" rhetoric, mainly touted by people who naturally don't consider themselves in that "most drivers" category. Most drivers are sensible and will drive safely using their own judgement, and I think that one of the most dangerous things you can do is to remove drivers judgement from the process.It's of course important to educate people as to the dangers of certain actions, a method that has worked well in people's attitudes to drink driving, for example. But I think the overbearing "speed kills" campaign (which isn't bad as part of a bigger campaign) has removed a lot of common sense from driving. Now we have speed cameras to catch people doing 32mph on a wide open road, and no-one to catch that idiot overtaking within the speed limit on a blind corner. Like I said, there's nothing wrong with encouraging people to reduce their speed, and enforcing it, but I think that it's become far too dominant a focus of road safety, because it's cheap and easy to appear as if you're doing something.
In terms of the centre of towns, road safety is easy. Remove all road signs, pedestrian crossings, traffic lights and such, and have combined traffic and pedestrian areas. It's been proven to work, because it relies on everyone paying attention and looking where they're going, for which they naturally slow down anyway. I don't go slow in a supermarket car park because the speed limit tells me to, I go slow in a car park because I know that the road is being shared with pedestrians. I go quicker on the road in town, because I assume that I'll only have other cars to look out for. How many times have you had someone not even look before stepping out onto a zebra crossing, for example? When people assume that the road system will keep them safe, they take no responsiblity for their own actions.
Oh, and one final point - speed bumps should be banned. I have no problem with those little chicane things, but speed bumps just wreck your car. No wonder so many people buy 4x4's nowadays.
But they can.
If community concern warrants a speed camera, the police can respond and decide to put one there.
The silliest thing was a young girl of around 15 if I remember correctly was absolutely wasted, walked out in front of a car doing 30-35mph when there was a zebra crossing 20 metres up the road, and he hit her, and she later died. They put a speed camera there, when if she had used the crossing as she should have then there would have been no issue. The driver wasn't drunk, and according to the reports afterwards he could have been doing 20mph and still killed her as she practically walked into the car.
I think most speed limits are fine, but there are plenty of places which could do with reviewing. The national speed limit, for example is usually about right - if not too much on country roads, but the same limit on a dual carriageway with gartecs on both sides is too slow in my opinion. Also - less speed cameras, more traffic police. They can use their subjective opinion - as long as they're regularly monitored, this should be fine in theory in my opinion.
And most drivers are idiots. I'm not saying i'm a perfect driver, I make mistakes like everybody else, but the majority of driver's on the road drive too fast for the conditions, they don't pay any attention, they pull silly manouvers like overtaking into central reservations and then when it's all happened they try and deny any wrongdoing, most drivers think their judgement is sound when it clearly isnt, if it was we wouldn't have any stupid accidents. I'm not advocating speed cameras, in some circumstances they are necessary, in others they are not, you're right they only catch ut speeding. But to assume that the presence of a patrol car rights all the wrongs would be naive. A patrol car affects the driving behaviour of about 6 cars at a time on a single carriageway and maybe 12-20 on a motorway, noone else because noone sees the car.
So do I think most drivers are idiots? No. But I think that a reasonable percentage of them are. I think that these drivers will be a problem no matter what the speed limit is, but, if you raise limits, you increase the number of people travelling at higher speeds which, as Whowhere says, increases the probability of any accident that takes place being a bad one.
There are probably places where the speed limit could do with going up. But they are few and far between, I think.
I think speed cameras are the perfect solution in urban areas, and the current laws saying they can only be put up after a death are wrong. I live on a road that has seen traffic flow double since a new bypass was built into town, and nobody does the speed limit, especially not the big quarry wagons. Great when I live opposite a school and a community centre, and the shops are 200 yards down the road round a sharp bend.
Was this a dig at me?
Bit busy at work to add a decent post on this topic, but my views are in line with Mr Skive.
Completely out-dated speed limits on motorways and many of the major roads with no obstructions etc, although I am fine with the speed limits in towns.
The Italians have a very good view on speed on their Autostrada which I found when I worked there - minimum speed limits on different lanes, and everybody has very good lane discipline. They don't tend to enforce a maximum speed limit. This needs to be enforced more over here (lane discipline) and the roads would be a safer place. Compulsary instruction for motorway driving and high speed driving is needed etc.
To my mind, on an empty motorway, there is nothing wrong with doing high velocities. It works in Germany (and I've worked there too). Lane discipline is much better there, as a note.
Variable speed limits are something that should be addressed.
:thumb: :thumb: :thumb: :thumb: :thumb:
Depends if you recklessly drive a 350z. If so, yes.
Never recklessly - only when conditions permit. Unfortunately I've sold it now and so will have to await the next rocket ship I buy before I can be 'reckless'.