Safe Speed Forums

I have to admit - I've heard this argument used by coppers.

Somone I know was pulled over for overtaking over double white lines - it was a long downhill stretch with a clear view; 2 lanes coming the other way and nothing on them. He was pulled by an unmarked car after he had executed the overtake.

The officer said that she could see he hadn't endangered anyone as it was clear but it set a bad example to other motorists who might follow suite.

I have 2 problems with this:

1. He broke the law. Don't fanny about justifying giving hima ticket because he might influence others - just do him for breaking the law. It's that simple.

2. Since when is he (or anyone else) responsible for other people on the road copying him??????? It's another fine example of how current society is constantly expecting sensible people to take responsibility for stupid people!

My sister-in-law (a vet surgeon) and my wife say it is amazing what you can do with apes!





True. Some of the Partnerships have the speed course - which vary in intensity - but "hazard awareness" seems to be main ingredient from what I ascertain. There are also "Driver Improvement " courses - but these are down to trafpols putting people forward after attending minor crunches or pulling the odd punter they observe. Bit hit and miss really.

Germany - according to the relatives - they send out warning letter after two offences to "remind people to be careful" If this is not despatched at this stage - disqualification further down the line does not occur. At second offence - speed course is optional. At tot up closing up on ban - this is compulsory, and if they do get banned - draconian re-test and date with psychiatriast!

Personally - and said this over and over again - would like to see L-Test brought to German standard with compulsory motorway drive. New drivers should be assessed - refresher on hazard awareness/theory every 5 years and existing ones motivated by lure of cheaper insurance to do this for themselves. Simply because logistics of implementing compulsory assessment for existing licence holders would be difficult to "sell" to them, and administration could be difficult...

Lure of cheaper insurance will offset cost to drivers who pay for this themselves.



Now - not noticed that many breaking speed limit in "dangerous" way. There is a small hard core - but 75% of drivers I meet on road do not place me in danger. If that was so - I would not be exposing myself or my wife and kids to that danger on daily basis.

Mobile phone - have never ever used one in the car, in the wards, or anywhere where is would be discourteous. Admit - came close to getting myself in bother when I had to quell desire to ram one down someone's throat in the theatre in Keswick once....

Tailgating... they exist, are nuisance, but are relatively easy to ditch. Wildy and self have engineered the odd ping for persistent muppet at fave scam spot



Does not. Creates resentments, and these doo-dahs have been known to be in error. Public service ads do nothing at all - because we do not see enough of them - and the ones that are available do not have that memorable catchy quality of the "Clunk Click", "Weaver Bird" "Wooden Top" variety Those are the impact ones we need - and at saturation point - like they used to be! (Ooo-er - cardy and slippers - "When I was a lad....." )

So, if I take a corner at a certain speed, WITHIN THE SPEED LIMIT, knowing full well that my car is capable of doing so in a safe, skid-free, stable manner, when my experience, intuition, or whatever, is telling me that the car behind me probably wouldn't get round at the same speed without skidding, spinning or at the very least coming far closer to losing it than I'd be happy with if I were in that car, that's reprehensible?

Sorry, no. I agree that I should drive in a way that sets a good example, but that doesn't mean driving in a way that limits the use of my abilities to match the abilities of the least experienced driver on the road at that time. If someone is incapable of deciding for themselves that emulating my driving would be dangerous, then they should be booking some more driving lessons or advanced tuition as soon as possible.




Try and forget about speeding for just long enough to write at least one reply in this thread, please.



Even if that speed is one which would be unsafe for a lesser driver to attempt in the conditions? How does that fit in with your idea that experienced drivers shouldn't be seen to do anything that might give inexperienced drivers the wrong idea? Because from where I'm sitting, it seems like you've just agreed with my earlier point, contradicting yourself completely...




Hardly.






Thank you, that's exactly the answer I was looking for. Now would you care to explain how this fits in with your prior comments such as "By indirect danger, I mean by setting a bad example to inferior drivers, who go on to do the same thing, but dangerously."? Because it looks to me as if you've just agreed with me and Gatsobait, which is a complete U-turn.

Sometimes you really annoy me basingwerk. It's nearly lunchtime, I'm trying to lose weight, and you had to go and mention chips.
Seriously, I take your point, but on the roads the situation is rather different. Most, if not all, the behaviour I'd describe as morally reprehensible is already outside the law. For example, there are a number of different offences relating to drink driving, some of which can apply even if a driver is actually below the normal blood alcohol limit. Look at the offence codes. DR20 is being unfit to drive through drink and doesn't mention the limit (that's DR10 BTW), which I assume is used when the plod stop somone who's just under the limit but still driving very badly as a result. Obviously if they're over the limit they'd just use DR10. There is even an offence code MS60, described as offences not covered by any other code. I imagine this could possibly be used for excessive speed offences that are below the posted limit. Of course, this sort of thing is fairly subjective and so getting a convinction might often be an iffy proposition. Doesn't stop a trafplod tugging a badly behaved driver and giving them the lecture.

I think there is very little scope for driving that is unsafe yet technically legal. It is far easier to drive in a way which is technically illegal yet still safe. Then there would be the inevitable privacy concerns. This isn't quite the same thing, but in the US Ford and GM cars are factory fitted with a kind of black box data recorder (I think it's called Event Data Recoder or EDR). IIRC it holds info like speed, revs, steering input, braking force etc for 30 seconds or so, constantly discarding the oldest data as new data is recorded. If the airbags go off, that information is retained and can be used to help determine fault. Some concerns have been voiced about who actually owns that data, the state, the car owner, the police, the insurance company, or what?
Actually, I wouldn't object to the collection of such data, either the sort you refer to or that collected by EDRs, if, and it's a big if, the reverse also applied. That is, as well as recording unsafe but technically legal behaviour they should also take account of technically illegal behaviour that is perfectly safe.

I think direct danger is pretty unlikely. Simply by causing danger it's almost inevitable that would have broken a law or two in the process, and we're only talking about remaining within the law here.
As for the indirect danger of setting bad examples... well, the point has already been made that we could worry about this sort of thing ad infinitum. There are many things that are perfectly safe for at least one person, and yet dangerous when attempted by someone else who hasn't a clue. Do we restrict them all? Do we go to the lowest common denominator across the whole range of human activity? What a joyless world that would be.
In any event, this indirect danger of setting a bad example makes the huge assumption that unskilled drivers will always attempt to copy the behaviour of skilled drivers. In reality I very much doubt that this is happening to any great extent, perhaps hardly at all. If the unskilled were always copying the most skilled then there'd much less tailgating going on for one thing. I have copied Mrs Gatsobait's driving style in many areas, since she's passed IAM and I presumed she was a better driver than me (reckon we're about equal now ). However, nobody else in our family is copying us, so we still have to nag them about observations, safe distances, yadda yadda yadda.
The problem is not that unskilled drivers are copying skilled drivers, the problem is that they aren't.

I don't feel able to judge my driving ability. I don't feel I am sufficiently objective or qualified to make that assessment. However, using speed as an example for simplicity, I do know when I am driving far below what my ability allows me to do in safety. Take this morning, dry road, NSL, straight section with no turn offs. I was forced to drive way slower than I am capable of because the guy ahead was burbling along at 45 or so. BTW basingwerk, this was you favourite sort of driver - when we got to a 30 zone I slowed down and the twat kept going at the same speed! Thumb in bum, mind on Planet Fartie. Still, going back to the point, is it really fair, or even practical, to restrict 30 million drivers due to the sort of old fool who was in front of me today? Surely it's better to get him either re-educated or removed. These problems will not go away by simply forcing safe drivers to drive below their abilitites.
There is also a hard core of arrogant dickheads who constantly overstate their driving ability, usually having had no advanced training and not having looked at the HC since they passed the L- test. How does restricting everyone to the ability of the least skilled driver deal with these idiots? They don't take any notice as it is, and nothing will change since you really can't legislate for arrogance. If you could the Palace of Westminster would need to have bars on all the exits.
Carrots and sticks, mate. We already have the sticks (summonses, FPNs, lecturing trafplods etc), but the carrots are all conspicuously absent. You said earlier that public service ads do nothing at all. I'd agree that many of them are pretty hopeless, especially those bloody hedgehogs. However, past campaigns have worked, admittedly alongside other means such as changes in the law and police crackdowns. Remember "Clunk Click Every Trip"? Nearly everyone now wears their seatbelt without complaint. We also need carrots that encourage people to improve their standard of driving, and a bit more flexibility in the sticks so the courts can get the very worst drivers off the road right away.

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

As far as I know, there is no legal constraint on that, and so you have no duty to act that way. There is a legal constraint on speeding, and its purpose, as far as I know, is to present a reasonable compromise between speed and safety. This has to work well for the inexperienced, poorly sighted, half-witted buffon, as well as the Jackie Stewarts of the road. So yes, you have to try and fit in with it, Pete317, or risk a fine.



Yes, the 11th commandment shall be 'Thou Shalt Not Speed'!

_________________
I stole this .sig

Hm... Twister talking about U-turns!

The limit is a compromise between safety and speed that has to fit with all drivers, good and bad, and especially those who think they are good, but are really quite bad, i.e. the vast majority. Perhaps you think you are a great driver yourself. Its a common failing, nothing to be ashamed of. Or you could even be right and you are a good driver, how should I know?

If you don't break the law and don't do anything morally reprehensible, you have discharged your duties. Its morally reprehensible to break the speed limit (even for good drivers) because it sets a bad example to others. What's the prpblem with that?

_________________
I stole this .sig

basingwerk, put them goalposts back. We're talking about driving within the law remember? Speeding doesn't enter into it (not that I'm saying it should be necessarily be held up as a good example before you ask ).

Your words, my bold:



I thought this was about drivers who stay within the law but are setting a bad example by doing so.

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

basingwerk, put them goalposts back. We're talking about driving within the law remember? Speeding doesn't enter into it (not that I'm saying it should be necessarily be held up as a good example before you ask ).

Your words, my bold:



I thought this was about drivers who stay within the law but are setting a bad example by doing so.

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

But it doesn't fit all drivers, does it. Nor does it take into consideration other factors that affect safety - weather, vehicle condition etc. 70MPH on a motorway in good weather and light traffic may be perfectly safe for one driver in one vehicle, but may be suicidal for a different driver in that same vehicle, or for the first driver in a different vehicle.




Nope, I know perfectly well that I'm not a great driver. However, I also know that I'm not one of your numpties who'll try to emulate every driver they see irrespective of how they rate their own driving abilities. In the 11 years I've held a full licence I've never been involved in an accident and I've never had any points on my licence or been fined for anything, not even a parking ticket. Yes, I've had a few "oh shit" moments which could have turned into accidents if it hadn't been for the reactions of myself or the other road user, but I've learned from them. Do I stick rigidly to the law every time I'm behind the wheel? No. Give me a free flowing stretch of motorway in good conditions and chances are you'll find me doing a bit above the legal limit, though not so much above it that I'd stand out. On the other hand, if you were following me on a drive through the countryside, you'd better be ready to slow down for the 30 zone through the next village...




Sigh... Once again your utter fixation with speed makes it impossible for you to see the whole point. I don't have a problem with the suggestion that driving illegally may set a bad example. I do have a problem with your idea that driving legally and safely is still setting a bad example to lesser-skilled drivers.

OK, yes that I can dig, yes. What I mean is that your legal duties are constrained to the law, although your moral duties extend beyond that.

The cases we seem to be covering are

1) I can drive within the law, but set a bad example or
2) I can drive within the law, and not set a bad example or
3) I can drive outside the law, and set a bad example or
4) I can drive outside the law, and not set a bad example.

The first, (lawful but bad example) might be a mild case of tailgating. It is within the law and quasi-technically safe, but reprehensible, even for a good driver, because it sets a bad example for poor ones. The second (lawful and not bad example). Even I can't grumble about that. The third (outside the law, and bad example) is an obvious bad thing. And the fourth (outside the law, and not bad example) is, I contend, only possible on a private road. This is because, if people observe you breaking the law on a public road, it affects the driving culture. This might be aggressive tailgating or speeding over the absolute top limit.

The roads (like much else) are subject to Malthusianism, and rules have to be devised for the safe sharing of them. These rules are set politically, to trade-off speed, safety and driving abilities, so they will always be a compromise. I understand Pete317's and Twister's frustration with that. They want to be free. But I can't understand how they can claim to drive on a public road, outside the law, and not set a bad example. How can you do that?

_________________
I stole this .sig

Well, that's my point. That sounds a bit like driving without due care and attention, which means it's not within the law. So your example for case 1 is really case 3. Just because it's not something obvious and unarguable like going over a posted speed limit (and of course I am in no way commenting on the safety or danger involved in doing that ) doesn't mean that there isn't a law against it.
I still believe, in the absence of a solid example of something that is unarguably legal yet obviosuly iffy, that dangerous behaviour on the road is invariably illegal (though strangely not if you're a pedestrian). Of course behaviour that is illegal is not necessarily dangerous, but I think we've done that point to death already.

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

A person who drives legally and safely could not really be accused of setting a bad example to lesser-skilled drivers, in my opinion. That's what I want, after all, safe, legal drivers.



Do you mean that you select the laws you want to obey, and hope you don't get noticed when you break the ones you don't agree with.



Are you weary?



But I contened that driving illegally must set a bad example, unless you strike it lucke and no one sees you.

_________________
I stole this .sig

And, as ever, that is where we differ. Behaviour that is illegal is not necessarily dangerous in the first order, but it may be dangerous because it affects the driving culture and is reprehensible on that basis, both legally and morally.

_________________
I stole this .sig

I educate - in course of duty - but then - have some advantage

It was drummed into me early on that BiBs are "ambassadors" to certain extent of the LAW and we have obligation to behave in manner befitting the profession at all times. The Mad Cats actually behave themselves as far as I am aware

Off duty - and have taken a poll around this very unusual family of RoSPA trained petrolheads Do we notice numpties following us back into L1 after our overtakes? Does happen - but not as often as one would like. Do they follow our example of COAST and setting speed around speed limit (even accounting for fact that these people are human and drift with 10% margins - myself included? ) Again - it happens - but not as many as one would hope. In fact - whenever we visit the Mad Cats (and I have noticed this for myself) talivans overtake us - in other words - those people fining break speed limits themselves ... in the 20 mph zones in particular -- you know - the ones where people do strange things and walk . If the people seen to be enforcing do this - then battle for complete compliance is lost.

However, there is a necessity for some old fashioned give and take. Basingwerk - a surprising number of intoxicated people manage to drive at just below speed limit. They may not be swerving or showing that many outward signs - but they are slow to respond to that hazard. In real terms - less likely to pull a just over at 35mph at 2 am - but will target a 29 mph -er. Amazing how many of these actually turn out to be only just legal or just illegal and even twice legal limit...

You also find that some of them are being ultra-careful - because they are DWDs...

That is the problem with the speed cams - they do not and cannot cop these people. Hardly the example of legality you crave - and sensible BiB presence - deployed intelligently can be of more use.

But - bottom line - driver education, adverts, BiB lectures, - these do far more collectively to influence behaviour for the better than a speed camera on downgraded dual carriageways, within 5 car lengths of a speed limit change, targetting on gradients which will add a normal velocity - but are not in themselves unsafe.

In other words - intelligent policing and use of BiB time and efforts

I do see where you're coming from here, though I know it's hard to believe. As I understand it, your point is that as soon as one person does 75 instead of 70 other people will do so as well. I would say that if a majority of people then choose to do 75 as well, and if that passes without incident, then the limit was too low for the conditions. That isn't a reason for changing the limit, of course. In other circumstances the majority of drivers might only do 50, with one or two nutters still going at 75. Remember this?
Your point was about the variability of driving skills, but it is equally applicable to driving conditions. On a motorway covered with snow and ice 70mph is way too high, perhaps by as much as 60mph. On the other hand a dry motorway with little or no traffic might be good for a ton or more. You said it yourself, it's a compromise. On that basis, for safety we need two things: drivers must be prepared to be flexible about speed, and the authorities must be prepared to be flexible about enforcement. At the moment we have neither.

I'm not sure that the bad example problem is as straightforward as you make out. As I said before, the majority of traffic does not seem to be taking the behaviour of the most skilled drivers as their example. Good drivers leave safe gaps, they indicate when changing lanes, they position the car for maximum visibility on bends by going round the outside (used to go round the inside myself until Mrs IAM Gatsobait taught me otherwise ), they anticipate what other road users are likely to do, they prepare for manoeuvres early (unlike the knuckle draggers who cut across three lanes of motorway traffic to get to the slip road at the last possible moment), they're usually courteous, they rarely exceed a sensibly set speed limit as they tend to drive according to conditions, and so on. This sort of behaviour is notably lacking in the majority of drivers in my area, so unless we're a bit funny round here I think it's safe to say that unskilled drivers are not being influenced by the behaviour of skilled drivers. Maybe it's different where you live, but I doubt it. Forgive me for repeating myself, but the problem is not that the unskilled are copying the skilled, the problem is that they aren't.

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

Road safety depends on the responsible behaviour of each individual.

It is actually wrong for a skilled driver to modify his driving style to educate other drivers. In fact copying other drivers is to be DEPLORED and never encouraged.

The fundamental reason that it will always be dangerous to copy another driver is that you can't be aware of what the other driver actually knows, both in terms of knowledge of the subject and in terms of the immediate circumstances.

But it's worse even than that... If you suggest that drivers should "educate others by their actions" where does it all stop? Do we rebuke bad driving? Do we pull each other over and explain the other chap's error?

Nah. No driver on the road should ever drive in a way intended to educate others (with the exception of Police drivers, who have special responsibilities, and obviously those properly involved in training.).

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

It is not all it depends on. It is also a collaborative process that depends on people interacting properly, and that is why we have devised a protocol - the highway code.



In a human group activity, a herd mentality is present, so now matter how much you or I deplore it, people will observe what others do and act on that.



Yet the police are aware that they are 'ambassadors of the law', setting good examples to other drivers.



I didn't say that, nor does the protocol. You are off protocol if you do that, and anything could happen!



Yet no driver can ever drive in a way that others can not observe and emulate, except on a private road.

_________________
I stole this .sig

So - explain why certain pedestrians, cyclists, parents, do not think it applies to them. Why is Green Cross not more prominently exposed?



Except they never follow the role model In anything! Best medium is zappy bite size information snippets on the telly - the sort which stick in memory. And are reliable as examples of "best practice". But these cost money and do not make money.




There is a difference here - IG and his sort have powers of arrest. You know darned well you jump a little more to attention when you see that cop car on the road. You expect something a little "special" because you associate professional training to certain level with the police.



I can only hope that someone notes my lane discipline and thinks "That guy is keeping left , using indicators to let me know what he is up to, etc. - perhaps I should follow his lead" But to rebuke someone - akin to road rage. Numpties are part of road conditions - so you drive applying COAST to defend against them. That is what should be advertised - quite forcibly instead of "Speed Kills". It is non-application of COAST which actually KILLS!



Basically I drive according to conditions. You concentrate on the road, observe all details, anticipate the potential hazards, allow yourself space and time to apply "defensive" driving to compensate for weakness of another.

That also applies to tailgaters - but wife & me - we have a fave scam which we nail them on - if possibility arises!

We have a lot of other protocols - but people do not follow them Perhaps a lotof the problem boils down to non-teaching of basic good manners and common sense



There are certain things we have been trained to do - which should not be emulated.

We all have different skills and abilities. A skilled anyone can do something - but it is the old saying Don't do this at home - folks!

The best training we can give is to give the good tips, information tips on best practice, and above all - encourage people to evaluate their performance - the same as they do at normal work.

Paul's idea of an incident diary is a very good idea and one which we should be encouraging.




Probably as the Mad Lad says - it is expected - given that you all paid to train us! Public has an expectation - and if we fall short - then reputation is on line.



Leads to road rage. Only people who can do this are BiB and driving instructors/examiners/speed course/driver improvement course wallies. Basically - best bet is to bite tongue and chalk to experience - evaluate your own performance to work out how you contributed to it and what you could do better next time. Again - Paulie's diary idea!

I'm quite convinced that "individual responsibility" is the single most important road safety ingredient. The Highway Code is important, of course, but it's probably number 10 or something.



Let's remember the context - according to latest DfT figures, 59% of people are exceeding the speed limit at samples sites in 30mph zones. And you're suggesting that because of copying behaviour, the most talented 1% (? or 5% or whatever) should set an example and expect it to be followed?



Yes, I said that, didn't I?



It's a question of where you draw the line. Your idea is the start of the slippery slope. I (properly) drive first for the safety of myself (and my vehicle and passengers) and secondly for the safety of those around me. Mostly those two priorities result in the same action, and in some exceptional circumstances they get reversed. (e.g. I might one day have the presence of mind to deliberately crash my car to avoid a pedestrian.)



Remember individual responsibility? I'm responsible for MY actions, and never responsible for THEIR actions.

Suppose I am overtaking. Do I stick to the speed limit to set an example, or do I clear the risk zone as quickly as safely possible?

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