The Speed Trap - BBC1 Scotland

Matt B wrote:
Can you think of a time when one might be unacceptably high?

I can't, but I'm sure you would be only too happy to give us an example
of when you think this is the case.

d.

Matt B wrote:

"John B" wrote in message
...
Matt B wrote:

Do you think that all speed limits are appropriate for all conditions at
all
times?

Of course they are not. What a silly question.

Elaborate.

You have to ask?
Try traffic levels, other road users, weather conditions for starters...
Drivers need to slow down and adapt to specific conditions.
Hint: the speed limit is a maximum, not a target come what may.

Very often they are far too high and a good driver will take conditions
into account.

What can we deduce from the fact that you only got 50% of the correct
answer?

Eh? Do enlighten me as to what the correct answer is then.

John B

I wrote:
I can't

excuse me, I misread the question, so in fact I can think of plenty of
examples where the speed limit is unacceptably high.

One example is the road I live on, which currently has a 40 limit, but
until about two years ago it had a 60 limit, which was definitely way
too high. It wouldn't have been so bad if people stuck to the 60 limit,
but they generally treated "60" as meaning it's OK to drive at 75. Now
that it's 40, they tend to think it's OK to drive at 60, which is
appalling, but is at least a slight improvement.

My reasons for believing that 60 was too high are quite simple to
explain. My house is just below a blind summit, which is also on a bend.
There is no footpath on this stretch of the road, due to it being too
narrow, so to get to the bus stop I need to walk along the edge of the
road (there is hardly any verge to speak of) over this blind
summit/bend. You can probably guess how terrifying it is when cars come
hurtling towards you at great speed over the hill and have to swerve
across the double white lines to avoid you. Especially terrifying if
there is traffic coming the other way. One day, probably sooner rather
than later, either I am going to get killed - or worse, my 7yo son will
be killed - or a car will swerve to avoid me and run straight into the
path of one coming the other way.

Really, I can't see there being any good excuse for anyone going faster
than 30 over this stretch of road, even in perfect driving conditions.

I have been lobbying the council to do something about this, but they
are all tory bigots who are more interested in the personal liberties of
motorists than the safety of pedestrians.

d.

"davek" wrote in message
...
Matt B wrote:
Do you think that all speed limits are appropriate for all conditions at
all times?

No, most of them are way too high.

Can you provide data to support that apparently wild assertion?

In any case, even if it were potentially "safe" to drive faster than the
speed limit on certain roads in certain conditions at certain times of the
day, it remains the case that motorists do not have the god-given right to
determine for themselves how fast they are "allowed" to drive.

An interesting view, given that they are currently expected to decide for
themselves at what speed they travel if the posted limit is way too high for
the prevailing conditions.

Do you trust them to drive at an appropriate speed for the conditions only
if that happens to be less than the posted limit? I wonder just how often
the posted limit is exactly the maximum appropriate speed.

After all, what's the hurry?

I'm more concerned with the situation where the limit is too high rather
than where it is too low.

However...

The truth is that it is extremely rare that there is any good excuse for
driving faster than the speed limit - fast, aggressive driving

Dont assume fast is always aggressive.

doesn't reduce journey times by a significant margin due to other factors,
such as traffic (and even if you can get to your destination two minutes
sooner, so what?

I would suggest that night journey times on motorways could be halved in
certain situations.

how often are those two minutes going to make an important difference to
your life?),

What two minutes? The ones you just asserted?

so really it just comes down to drivers going faster because it is more
enjoyable/less boring,

Your opinion - no more.

and since most journeys are made for utility purposes rather than leisure
(ie driving for the sake of it), enjoyment should not be a factor in
deciding driving style.

What a miserable view.

If you want to get enjoyment out of your driving, get yourself on to a
race track, where speed is both appropriate and [relatively] safe.

Should the same condition be applied to other forms of "utility" travel -
walking, cycling, use of pt?

--
Matt B

Matt B wrote:
Can you provide data to support that apparently wild assertion?

Are you able to prove that it was a wild assertion?

An interesting view, given that they are currently expected to decide for
themselves at what speed they travel if the posted limit is way too high for
the prevailing conditions.

You can always decide for yourself to drive slower and more carefully.
Only society as a whole (via the appropriate authority) is entitled to
permit you to drive faster.

Do you trust them to drive at an appropriate speed for the conditions only
if that happens to be less than the posted limit? I wonder just how often
the posted limit is exactly the maximum appropriate speed.

The posted limit generally allows drivers a huge amount of leeway, based
on the assumption that anyone who has passed their driving test is
capable of making the necessary decisions. Unfortunately, people have a
tendency to over-estimate their own experience and ability behind the
wheel of a car. If you think that's a "wild assertion", perhaps you
could explain to me why there are so many crashes and deaths on the road
every year. It can't be all down to poor road design.

I'm more concerned with the situation where the limit is too high rather
than where it is too low.

Pffft.

Dont assume fast is always aggressive.

But it is, by definition.

I would suggest that night journey times on motorways could be halved in
certain situations.

The problem at night is that while there are fewer cars on the road,
there are other factors that should limit your speed - such as the fact
that it is dark, for one thing.

What two minutes? The ones you just asserted?

Two minutes, three minutes, whatever, that's not important - the point
is that driving faster only makes a small difference to your journey
time, and it is extremely rare that it makes a difference that will have
a significant impact on your life. Ergo, driving faster cannot be
justified on grounds of reducing journey time.

Your opinion - no more.

I happen to think my opinion counts for rather a lot.

In this case, my opinion is based on comments made my many people of my
acquaintance (I could name names) that they find 70mph too slow on the
motorway because it is boring, and driving faster is more enjoyable.
I've also heard people say that driving faster helps to keep them alert,
especially when they are tired. An extraordinarily reckless attitude,
I'm sure you will agree.

What a miserable view.

Your opinion - no more.

Should the same condition be applied to other forms of "utility" travel -
walking, cycling, use of pt?

If you care to check your facts, you'll find that the same condition is
already applied to /all/ forms of transport. The public highway is not a
race track - not for cyclists, not for pedestrians and not for motor
vehicles. The law is perfectly clear on this matter.

d.

"John B" wrote in message
...
Matt B wrote:

"John B" wrote in message
...
Matt B wrote:

Do you think that all speed limits are appropriate for all conditions
at
all
times?

Of course they are not. What a silly question.

Elaborate.

You have to ask?

Did you read the post I was replying to?

Try traffic levels, other road users, weather conditions for starters...
Drivers need to slow down and adapt to specific conditions.
Hint: the speed limit is a maximum, not a target come what may.

You may think _you_ know all the answers, but it was really the opinion of
the op I was seeking.

Very often they are far too high and a good driver will take conditions
into account.

What can we deduce from the fact that you only got 50% of the correct
answer?

Eh? Do enlighten me as to what the correct answer is then.

What a silly question. You have to ask? ;-) Hint: if they are not always
exactly appropriate for the conditions - sometimes they are too _high_, and
at others they may be too...

--
Matt B

Matt B wrote:
"davek" wrote in message
...
Matt B wrote:
Do you think that all speed limits are appropriate for all conditions at
all times?

No, most of them are way too high.

Can you provide data to support that apparently wild assertion?

Highway Code, general rule 105: "Drive at a speed that will allow you
to stop well within the distance you can see to be clear"

If you are proceeding along a busy highstreet or residential area at
30mph, in good visibility and on a dry road, the stopping distance
works out as about 5 to 6 car lengths. What happens if a toddler
breaks free of its mother just three car lengths away? A pensioner
slips at the curb and a falls into the rorad, and you make road-kill
out of them? Such things *do* happen and if you cannot stop in time,
you were going too fast, regardless of the speed limit, it was no
'accident', and you were toting the weapon.

As a motorcyclist, you learn not to out-ride your sight-lines early on,
or take the fall. Car drivers are not themselves so exposed to the
results of their actions, and are exonerated by society by describing
it as an 'accident', as if it was an unlucky roll of the dice, whereas
it was human error, inattention, bad judgement: dangerous driving.

So, 30mph in such settings is certainly way too high.

sothach wrote:
So, 30mph in such settings is certainly way too high.

The high street in my local town centre recently had the speed limit
reduced from 30 to 20 - a long overdue move, in my book, for all the
reasons you state, and yet you should see the complaints in the letters
page in the local rag...

I just don't get it. Are people really so thick that they don't
understand why it is so dangerous to drive at 30mph down a busy high street?

(Btw, Matt B, that's two concrete examples of where I thought the speed
limit was previously too high, and the actions of the council seem to
back up my view - despite what I previously said about them being tory
bigots, they do sometimes get it right.)

d.

"Matt B" wrote in message
...
"davek" wrote in message
...
Matt B wrote:
Do you think that all speed limits are appropriate for all conditions
at
all times?

No, most of them are way too high.

Can you provide data to support that apparently wild assertion?


Matt B. is a troll.

"davek" wrote in message
...
Matt B wrote:
Can you provide data to support that apparently wild assertion?

Are you able to prove that it was a wild assertion?

I'm guilty until I prove my innocence am I?

An interesting view, given that they are currently expected to decide for
themselves at what speed they travel if the posted limit is way too high
for the prevailing conditions.

You can always decide for yourself to drive slower

Let me get this right - you are saying that as long as you are within the
posted speed limit it doesn't matter how dangerously fast you are going?

and more carefully.

By implication you are suggesting that to drive less carefully is also an
acceptable choice. You surely have a duty to always drive as carefully as
possible.

Only society as a whole (via the appropriate authority) is entitled to
permit you to drive faster.

I honestly think that you _do_ believe that the speed limit is king and that
you can drive as recklessly as you choose within it.

Do you trust them to drive at an appropriate speed for the conditions
only if that happens to be less than the posted limit? I wonder just how
often the posted limit is exactly the maximum appropriate speed.

The posted limit generally allows drivers a huge amount of leeway, based
on the assumption that anyone who has passed their driving test is capable
of making the necessary decisions. Unfortunately, people have a tendency
to over-estimate their own experience and ability behind the wheel of a
car. If you think that's a "wild assertion", perhaps you could explain to
me why there are so many crashes and deaths on the road every year. It
can't be all down to poor road design.

Poor roadmanship IMHO.

I'm more concerned with the situation where the limit is too high rather
than where it is too low.

Pffft.

Check my history.

Dont assume fast is always aggressive.

But it is, by definition.

Fast = Aggressive? Aggressive = Fast?

I would suggest that night journey times on motorways could be halved in
certain situations.

The problem at night is that while there are fewer cars on the road, there
are other factors that should limit your speed - such as the fact that it
is dark, for one thing.

Hehe :-)

What two minutes? The ones you just asserted?

Two minutes, three minutes, whatever, that's not important - the point is
that driving faster only makes a small difference to your journey time,

Depends on journey length and speed surely.

and it is extremely rare that it makes a difference that will have a
significant impact on your life. Ergo, driving faster cannot be justified
on grounds of reducing journey time.

Time is money ;-)

Your opinion - no more.

I happen to think my opinion counts for rather a lot.

Mmm ;-)

In this case, my opinion is based on comments made my many people of my
acquaintance (I could name names) that they find 70mph too slow on the
motorway because it is boring, and driving faster is more enjoyable. I've
also heard people say that driving faster helps to keep them alert,
especially when they are tired. An extraordinarily reckless attitude, I'm
sure you will agree.

Driving whilst tired is not to be recommended at any speed. Concentration
is a very important factor in safe driving, and there is nothing that dulls
that more than travelling at a constant speed, which is well below the
optimum safe speed for the road, behind the same vehicle and adjacent to the
same vehicle for ages at a time.

What a miserable view.

Your opinion - no more.

And that of many others I suspect ;-)

Should the same condition be applied to other forms of "utility" travel -
walking, cycling, use of pt?

If you care to check your facts, you'll find that the same condition is
already applied to /all/ forms of transport. The public highway is not a
race track - not for cyclists, not for pedestrians and not for motor
vehicles. The law is perfectly clear on this matter.

No, you misunderstand, not the "speed" bit, but the "enjoyment" bit. Should
we all be condemned to not enjoying travelling?

--
Matt B