Safe Speed Forums

I agree that draconian enforcement at 70 on the motorway does nothing for road safety, but we do need a limit, to advise motorists on a sensible safe speed.
Last night while trying to catch up a stolen vehicle travelling M6 north (and failing - Gawd knows where it went ) I brought my speed up to 105 -110mph (Ford Galaxy 2.8 V6). The road was clear and quiet and normally 130+ would have been on the cards. But the temperature was 1.5 - 0.5C and there was a significant cross wind which gusted through the valleys. So weather conditions were the prime reason for speed limitation - trimmed down a bit when in the vicinity of other vehicles, offer them an extra lane of comfort when passing, and remember the Galaxy is not a Volvo - it doesn't like cross winds .
Point is that when considering these 'excess' speeds we have to be concentrating fully, and apply COAST to an advanced level. This is a skill not always used by our 95mph + drivers, and I believe that they have to accept that enforcement at those speeds is reasonable.

I'm not sure whether other threads have developed the subject of advisory speed limits. Having given it some thought, I believe they could be introduced fairly comprehensively through our road network, either advising appropriate speeds through certain hazardous road areas (like Banerigg on A591 in Cumbria), or on roads where speeds around the 80th to 90th percentile are not considered

• to be at odds with the road safety needs of vulnerable road users, or
• to be ignoring certain hazards which have been shown to cause collisions.

Such a limit could be enforced not on the basis of speed alone unless an excessive speed is recorded ie 40% plus, but could be enforced within those speeds using speed as an aggravation factor when another bad driving attribute is evidenced. Those limits could be displayed and repeated using a different signing system such as this one I've made earlier


I believe by the use of different signage and enforcement strategies, we could again regain respect for our limits.

I'm sure there will be a few different views on the subject.

_________________
Fixed ideas are like cramp, for instance in the foot, yet the best remedy is to step on them.

Ian

A fair reasonable course of action in my view.

Surely its all about self-awareness. Self awareness seems to be the 'glue' for the various elements of good driving. Being pulled by a fair and open minded police officer allows reflection and 'refreshes' self awareness. Rightly or wrongly, being flashed and receiving an NIP probably just engenders the same kind discontent and grumpyness as you would see from someone who has just got a parking ticket. Any road safety message is obscured. Its almost like good parenting, do you take the time to have an honest conversation and allow the child to reflect on their actions? Or do you wordlessly smack them every time you perceive they crossed the line? 'That'll learn 'em.' -Doesn't work and never did.

I experienced a similar kind of situation a few weeks back on the A299. Quiet, dark and empty dual carriageway, an Astra coupe was overtaking me at about 90mph. I wasn't doing much less. In my mirror, a pair of headlights became a police car, obviously having been waiting in a slip road. It drew alongside the Astra, which slowed and drove in a very obvious way alongside for a few seconds. Fair, and both myself and the Astra (probably) got the point.

Is the purpose of the limit to advise a sensible safe speed? In the highway code, it says it is the absolute maximum speed allowed. Are drivers confused about the word “limit”, and think it is only advice?

Perhaps that could explain why so many drive so close to the limit that they go over it and get tickets. Will the meaning of the word ‘limit’ sink in eventually if enough are booked, or will they always think the limit is just for advice, whatever the law says?

_________________
I stole this .sig

What do you expect ? You can't have it both ways. If the limits are promoted as 'a safe speed for those of the lowest competence' then those of average or higher competence will recognise that the limit is unreasonably low and drive at the limit. This seems to be increasingly the case. It may be that the contempt that the unreasonably low limit creates results in some actually exceeding it.

You may not agree but IMO laws are " for the guidance of wise men and the obedience of fools"

Trouble you have i show do you know what cometence level you are. You may think you are of the higher standard but the reality is that you are more than likely at the lower. The very fact that drivers are willing to exceed the speed limit tends to indicate the later.

JJ

If we could get fools to obey the law, that alone would stop a lot of speeding. How can we do it? We could work on the wise men afterwards.

_________________
I stole this .sig

What if the very act of obedience is, in itself, foolhardy..??

_________________
CSCP Latin for beginners...
Ticketo ergo sum : I scam therefore I am!

Is Richard saying that people who do obey speed limits are fools? That would be much too harsh. Neither can he be inferring that people who don't obey the speed limit are wise! He could be saying that some people are wise, and some are fools, but who can tell one from the other?

It is not foolhardy to obey the speed limit. At worst, it could be said to be cautious, which is different. You are more likely to be foolhardy by breaking the limit, because of the extra danger, noise, pollution and wear and tear that you create, and the police/camera resources you use up, and the needless burden you impose on the health system when it all goes wrong, out of the blue.

_________________
I stole this .sig

The current limits are already regarded as advisory, aren't they? At least people here think they are. Besides using a different colour, what would be different about the new advisory signs? Would the current limits be less 'advisory' if specific advisory signage was introduced, or would they continue to be (perceived to be) advisory, as they are now?

_________________
I stole this .sig

My opinion is not the law, although it delineates how I enforce it, and no I don't think drivers are confused.

I think they have becone frustrated by over zealous low tolerance enforcement, which until recently, certainly on the motorway, did not exist, and there is no evidence that our 79 - 90 mph otherwise law abiding motorists are an added risk.

_________________
Fixed ideas are like cramp, for instance in the foot, yet the best remedy is to step on them.

Ian

If they were 'advisory' then I would imagine that most drivers would travel at 85 to 90 miles per hour on the motorway on a quiet Sunday morning even slipping past a police car without too much fear of prosecution . However there are areas where speed is much more of an issue because of the presence of vulnerable road users or other hazards, and those areas need to be enforced more rigidly.

_________________
Fixed ideas are like cramp, for instance in the foot, yet the best remedy is to step on them.

Ian

[quote="IanH

[/quote]

Ian

It would appear that is in direct conflict with your Chief Constable.

One would think so, and that advice would co-incide with the legal speed, taking into account professional and educated discretion, which can be factored into speed enforcement - it just isn't at the moment in most cases. The problem is that limits on painted signs are by their nature fixed, and driving conditions are constantly changing and degrees of safety are subject to countless variables.

We've been through this before BW.

The problems we have now have arisen partly because of a change of purpose for speed limits from a safe speed to a dictated speed - and the reason for the dictat isn't always primarily safety.

Seems more like a dig at blind and unquestioning obedience to me.

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

Ian

It would appear that is in direct conflict with your Chief Constable.[/quote]

A post where no doubt politics and reality necessarily blur, no matter how committed the individual is to serving the public.

I have to admit that I don't know where I stand right now, so goodness knows how learners and less experienced drivers will cope. That is why I give the same message – take the pledge and stay under the limit. But some think it is right to regard the limit as purely advisory, and I for one cannot tell whether or not those people are 'on message' with regard to vulnerable road users and hazards. I give them the benefit of the doubt here now, because they seem clear headed, but I also think there are 'car guys' out there who just like going fast, and they don't care where. They are just freeloading on the ‘SafeSpeed’ bandwagon because they have been stung.

Perhaps a little constructive ambiguity is OK - if it works. The trouble is that cutting somebody slack at location X and time Y, then not cutting them any in a different case makes it difficult to spread a consistent message about the rules of the system, whatever the law says. An additional layer of advisory signage would have to be managed carefully to avoid adding to that inconsistency.

_________________
I stole this .sig

I'm sure there must be a H&S law that stipulates that cooks should not spit in your food. You'd hope for blind and unquestioning obedience for that law, wouldn't you, Gatsobait? Yet when we consider the much more serious matter of conforming to driving laws, blind and unquestioning obedience is deemed to be foolish! Ha!

Once again, we have hit the fault line in our thinking about cars. Car companies have spent billions over the years to disrupt our thinking on things like that, and make big scale death and injury appear acceptable.

_________________
I stole this .sig

Personally I'd hope that one is obeyed, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't occasionally have, if you'll excuse the management bullshit-speak, a reality check. In that example we'd probably want to keep going as before, though whether that'd be sufficient on it's own to really prevent some snotty chef's lurgy ending up on your plate in microscopic form is another question. Mad Moggie needs to chip in here, but I suspect that no-gobbing-in-the-food just prevents visible grollies on the plate, and if you ordered oysters maybe not even that much.

What about laws that are flawed? Imagine something extreme like some Caligula-like character ended up in number 10 (assuming of course that this has not in fact happened already, and perhaps more than once ) and managed to push through some law that was quite unenforceable, like watching BBC2 after dark is illegal. Or perhaps something just plain daft, like at least one ward on rural councils must be represented by a badger (well, I did say a Caligula-like character ). I'd ****ing hope that anything like those would be questioned very loudly, and preferably before the other 658 clowns okayed it.

Alright, so that's a bit unrealistic, but in makes my point about unquestioning obedience. But how about something else? Something that is more subjective. How would you feel if there was a law making it compulsory to have a gun? Not very likely here, but there are places in the US that have mandatory gun ownership, so just imagine you had to move there for some reason. Would you be comfortable with unquestioning obedience, or would you prefer the law to be questioned and even disobeyed if necessary? Would you yourself be uncomfortable with a gun in the house and be inclined to disobey the law? And don't say you wouldn't move there in the first place because it's a cop out. This is a gun-to-your-head question (pun intended ). Would you want to know the justfication and thinking behind such a law, or would you just obediently trot down to the nearest gun shop and get tooled up?

You see my problem with blind and unquestioning obedience of the law as a whole. If we stop questioning the law we'll inevitably get bad laws as a result. Questioning the law is vital if we want it to keep a resemblance to justice. That doesn't mean we should discard appropriate and reasonable laws, just that all laws should be continually tested and retested. Those that are naturally just will still be with us indefinitely, while those with a shelf life will be indentified and discarded when they outlive their usefullness. Blind obedience will lead only to the law becoming our master rather than our servant.

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

I could give you a list, JJ

_________________
Fixed ideas are like cramp, for instance in the foot, yet the best remedy is to step on them.

Ian

Drivers that drive well below the limit, to me shows a lack of confidence and ability

If a driver holds a safe record, surely that is the best measure of their ability

_________________
Steve