Safe Speed Forums

Because I can.
I control the car, I don't want it to control me.

I used a speed limiter the other day, stuck cruise control on to 69 to overtake a police car on the motorway. Could have taken a nap while I was waiting to get past.

Anyway how can you do bank robberies with a speed limiter?

Which makes me think, emergency vehicles wouldn't have speed limiters so they would become good targets for theives.

_________________
Andrew.

If you have driven a restricted vehicle you will know why.

There are countless occasions where I have had to use speed to get out of trouble. Overtaking is just one time. Have you ever been overtaking a car when it has started to speed up. You could easily get stuck on the wrong side of the road.

_________________
Speed camera policy Kills

Crashing is generally the lowest concern in my mind when driving. I consider it staggeringly unlikely that I will crash my car, given the way in which I drive, it's extremely straightforward to drive in a manner that makes it close to impossible to crash. The biggest threat to my personal safety is the risk of exceeding the speed limit and being caught, fined, and eventually banned if it keeps happening. Hence I do need to know the two things I described in order to drive "safely". If there were no speed limit signs and no speedo, it would be very hard to be sure you're not going to be prosecuted for speeding, indeed there are enough insane 20mph limits now that you would need to stick to 20mph everywhere to be sure.

Yes, I imagine driving a restricted vehicle on roads where other vehicles aren't restricted to the same speed would be a nightmare. Much like trying to drive at the speed limit on roads where most people want to go 50% faster is already a nightmare.

Really?

Then why bother to stop at give ways and have a look for approaching traffic? Why bother to use your mirrors? In fact, why bother to even look out of the windscreen?

Isn't all of driving about avoiding the risk of crashing? What other purpose is there to the skills?

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

Don't you just hate it when some busybody numpty can impose an artifically low limit?

Imagine a line of traffic driving along a country road at 40mph (speed limit 60) you decide to overtake. You get half way past and the front car speeds up to 60. Because of speed limiting the cars are driving nose to tail (which is what they tend to do...think about lorries on the motorway)

What are you going to do. You cannot overtake because you are speed limited. You cannot get back in the line of traffic because you are to far and by now and traffic is coming the other way.

You are screwed!

_________________
Speed camera policy Kills

Again, the selective quote. I also said:
"it's extremely straightforward to drive in a manner that makes it close to impossible to crash"
Does that not answer all your questions?

I think part of our problem is that we mean different things when we talk about driving safely. To me it means getting from A to B without putting myself or anyone else at unnecessary risk of injury or death, and that's pretty much it other than some side stuff about not over starining the car either. But to you it also means avoiding the risk of fines and points. Perhaps we're arguing over semantics here, but IMO avoiding the risk of fines and points has absolutely nothng to do with driving safely - you are simply driving legally. Often, but not always, driving legally will also mean that you are driving safely, but on occasion the two can actually be incompatible with each other. Since it does not automatically follow that legal is safe I prefer to think of the two ideas as entirely seperate. I would agree that you need to know limit and current speed to drive legally, but I maintain that knowledge of either isn't necessary to drive safely. As I said before, as far as I'm concerned safe trumps legal every time.

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

But you already have this problem without speed limiters, unless you deem breaking the law to be an option, and even then you'll need to be prepared to go faster than the car you're overtaking is prepared to go to try to prevent you overtaking. I was once stuck behind a caterham driver who took great delight in driving along quite slowly and then using his vast acceleration to prevent anyone from overtaking him.

Gatsobait, yes, my view is that driving without crashing is a trivial matter, one that should be easily accomplished by any reasonably experienced driver. If you've been driving for 10 years, say, and don't have a level of skill (in terms of hazard anticipation etc) that is vastly better than that deemed necessary for passing the driving test, then you're doing something very wrong indeed.

So to me "safety" means something that is a threat to my welfare, and the only thing that presents a significant hazard to me whilst driving is speed enforcement, as the probability of falling victim to it is orders of magnitude greater than the risk of having an accident.

Oh yeh.. True.. Neat bit of lateral thinking there..

Apropos the original subject...

(1) Is this wondrous system going to be Europe-wide? If not, are visitors to our hallowed shores going to be forced to fit these amazing devices to their cars and trucks or are they going to be able to whizz around, carving up the unfortunate autochthonous population with wild abandon?

(2) I'd be willing to bet that the severity of accidents in 30 and 40 limited areas (and possibly all others on further thought) will increase... Why? I'd guess that a present-day "unlimited" driver doing say, 40 mph in a 30 zone whilst paying attention is going to be more likely to take evasive action, slow down or stop in the event of an incident than someone in a semi-coma trundling along at the "automatic" limit.

Anyway, it's a bloody stupid idea. Thank God I'll have emigrated long before it comes into operation.

_________________
"Politicians are the same the world over... We build bridges where there aren't any rivers." - Nikita Kruschev

Ah, semantics again. 'Trivial' isn't the word I'd choose. I certainly agree that a competent driver should not have any difficulty in avoiding collisions in normal circumstances, but I feel the use of the word 'trivial' er... trivialises its importance. I'm sure you would say that driving without crashing is important, so I don't doubt that you mean only that doing so should be fairly straightforward. However...


It does seem a bit like you value your licence and, presumably, economic welfare more than your health and physical welfare. I'm sure you don't in reality, but saying things like "the only thing that presents a significant hazard to me whilst driving is speed enforcement" makes it look that way. In return I'll say that the need to avoid endangering myself or others unnecessarily overrides all other concerns and priorities, and that should this ever confilct with the desire (NB desire, not need ) to avoid points then consider my middle finger upright 'cos the law can take a running jump.

Personally I don't think speed enforcement presents any sort of hazard whatsoever except that I must account for the possibility of an undesirable reaction from other drivers. I'd rather have the points and avoid the crash if it's all the same to you. Points are a pain, sure, but less so than a collision, and the fact that receiving points is more common than having a crash doesn't enter into it as far as I'm concerned. Usually it's possible to avoid both - nearly all the time in fact - but if you put a gun to my head and asked me points or crash, I'll take the points every time.

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

Not even close. No. It may be 'extremely straightforward' but:

* clearly that does not work in over 3 million cases each year.

* It may be extremely straightforward, but it still demands 'constant vigilance'.

I quoted selectively because I thought that particular statement was completely barking.

I'm still waiting for your to explain the purpose of safe driving skills. I mean why bother to learn to drive?

(On a read though, this reply of mine looks a bit aggressive. Please don't take it the wrong way. I'm incredulous and I want answers! I'm not trying to pick a fight.)

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

Well, we learn to drive because there are conventions and procedures that have been set up precisely to allow even relatively unintelligent people to follow these conventions and procedures and drive fairly safely, such as giving way to the right at roundabouts, mirror signal maneouvre etc. Once these procedures have been learned, a driver can drive fairly safely. When a driver has gone beyond learning, and has developed a true understanding of the reasoning behind the procedures, then driving safely becomes extremely easy.

Paul, you have said yourself on many occasions that a lot of accidents are caused by drunk or drugged drivers, people in stolen vehicles etc. I don't believe that any reasonably intelligent driver should have difficulty in driving from A to B without crashing, if they are in full control of their faculties and choosing to drive in a way that avoids risk.

To be honest, it's beyond my comprehension how so many people manage to crash, most examples I'm personally aware of come down to gross stupidity or deliberate risk taking.

So, I'm not saying I don't consider it important to drive safely, just that I consider it something I can more or less take for granted in everyday driving, as it isn't hard to do. I may be incorrect in my risk assessment, of course, but I believe the risk of me personally having an accident is miniscule. Therefore, as the risk of being caught speeding is far from miniscule these days, it presents a risk far, far greater than that of having an accident.

you answered your own question right there.

It would have to be Europe-wide as it would need vehicle construction & use regs changed to make the limiters compulsory. We have very little independent authority over C&U regs now - we had to abandon the very sensible dim-dip headlights and concede speed limiters on trucks above 3.5 tonnes.


It won't happen, IMV, for one very simple reason - it would cause a severe depression in the European car industry. If existing vehicles didn't have to be retrofitted, then sales of anything above basic cars would fall off a cliff. Even if retrofitting was compulsory, then people would be much more reluctant to shell out on a top-end BMW or Mercedes if they knew it was speed limited in exactly the same way as a Kia Picanto. I don't think the people who run the EU will want to have hundreds of thousands of workers in the automotive industry on the dole. But I could be wrong

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

Take it from me - the most frightening thing in the world is to see an oncoming car decide to overtake the car in front, without any warning whatsoever, and come over onto your side of the road about 20 yards ahead.
You just about have enough time to think, "Well this is it, I'm about to die".
OK, it was gross recklesness on his part - besides which he was blind drunk - but there was absolutely nothing I could have done to avoid or foresee it.
That was, incidentally, the last accident I ever had - about 25 years ago.

Cheers
Peter

_________________
Only when ideology, prejudice and dogma are set aside does the truth emerge - Kepler

I love the logical madness of this. If everyone has to have limiters fitted by law then there would be no speed policing of our roads (and no funding for it as the waste of resources to catch so few argument would be used by Chief Constables). So by disabling the limiter and speeding then there would be almost no chance of getting caught.

That is unless the ultimate lunacy were perpetrated of having talivans out doing checks when by government decree all are legal.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

No. At the risk of this looking like an 'ad hominen' attack, what it does is contradict your previous statement, make your choice of language look suspect, and undermine your credibility.