Speeding - Sometimes safe but not according to Plod....

[vonhosen]

Phatboy317 said:

vonhosen said:

...the employer only lets those who have extra training avail themselves of that exemption when necessary in order to mitigate the risks in doing so.

Are you seriously suggesting that something which millions of people have been safely doing for decades, now suddenly carries some huge risk which requires special training in order to mitigate, simply because some party of councillors decided to arbitrarily lower the limit?

Millions of people haven't been doing what they do day in day out (I'm not talking about doing 35 in a 30).
How many people have you (for instance) pursued who are trying to evade you through a town etc?

[mybrainhurts]

vonhosen said:

How many people have you (for instance) pursued who are trying to evade you through a town etc?

Just the one.

Plod commandeered my Vespa 125, jumped on the back, legs akimbo, one hand on me, one hand on helmet, and ordered me in hot pursuit of my pal Jim on a moped. One of those with pedals, you know.

Tally ho, everything forward and trust in the lord.

Jim was surprised.

[Red Devil]

mybrainhurts said:

Technically known as a Dunwoody limit.

The clueless bint led the Commons Transport Select Committee in the quest for new criteria for setting speed limits. They acted on "evidence" from the likes of BRAKE and Brunstrom and ignored the people who knew their subject.

Socialist control freakery at its worst.

The barrier won't be repaired any time soon due to 'budget constraints' so the 40 mph limit will remain in force for an indefinite period.

or

The barrier will be repaired but the previous limit won't be restored on some other 'safety' pretext (and/or heavy lobbying by BRAKE).

Place your bets boys and girls.

[Phatboy317]

vonhosen said:

Millions of people haven't been doing what they do day in day out (I'm not talking about doing 35 in a 30).
How many people have you (for instance) pursued who are trying to evade you through a town etc?

That's a different topic.
I'm talking about the "it's safe for us to exceed the speed limit by however much because we've had the benefit of extra training, but not Joe Public" mindset.

[anonymous-user]

Phatboy317 said:

vonhosen said:

Millions of people haven't been doing what they do day in day out (I'm not talking about doing 35 in a 30).
How many people have you (for instance) pursued who are trying to evade you through a town etc?

That's a different topic.
I'm talking about the "it's safe for us to exceed the speed limit by however much because we've had the benefit of extra training, but not Joe Public" mindset.

La Liga said:

The additional managed and minimised risk (training & warning equipment) is justified against the benefits of arriving much earlier to an emergency.

[Phatboy317]

La Liga said:

The additional managed and minimised risk (training & warning equipment) is justified against the benefits of arriving much earlier to an emergency.

You mean the additional risk of driving a few mph over some arbitrarily-set limit, but below the speed which was safe and legal for millions of people for decades before the limit was changed?

[anonymous-user]

That's the general principle, yes, but in relation to your specific road how do you know the police don't consider it safe at the previous speed? They don't set the speed limits.

[MC Bodge]

The Police often advise against reductions to speed limits, apparently.

The thrust of this thread is that many people feel aggrieved that, because there are a lot of barely competent drivers, but governments have tended to 'nanny' and remove responsibility from individuals in recent years, increased restrictions have been imposed on everybody.

Back to the original point, Rannoch Moor at even100mph in clear, quiet conditions isn't necessarily a problem ...Leaving the road at 100mph on one the bends after it would be. Most people would slow down though.

[Einion Yrth]

MC Bodge said:

The Police often advise against reductions to speed limits, apparently.

The thrust of this thread is that many people feel aggrieved that, because there are a lot of barely competent drivers, but governments have tended to 'nanny' and remove responsibility from individuals in recent years, increased restrictions have been imposed on everybody.

Back to the original point, Rannoch Moor at even100mph in clear, quiet conditions isn't necessarily a problem ...Leaving the road at 100mph on one the bends after it would be. Most people would slow down though.

Everybody would slow down; most would still be on the road.

[Phatboy317]

La Liga said:

That's the general principle, yes, but in relation to your specific road how do you know the police don't consider it safe at the previous speed? They don't set the speed limits.

Whether or not the police consider it safe is beside the point

[Pothole]

thatguy11 said:

I broke the law and I'll accept the consequences like a man.

Lots of guff contradicting the above

Really?

[tenpenceshort]

Whilst safety is the most cited inspiration for setting individual speed limits, there are other considerations;

- Maintenance of traffic flow;
- Pollution (both noise and emissions);
- Opinion of the local population;
- Overarching local and national traffic policies

In my opinion, this website (expectedly) contains a disproportionate number of people who believe they have a right to drive at a speed they decide is appropriate. Whilst doing so, a good number seem to pay too much attention to their own (often advanced) driving standards without consideration of those around them. This isolated approach doesn't recognise the opinions of others regards roads and driving; not that many people take enjoyment from driving and many find the roads and traffic a nuisance in general.

I don't see any significant evidence to suggest the population in general would support an increase in the national speed limit any more than oppose a reduction.

[TankRizzo]

OTBC said:

LEJOG riders sometimes use the A82, if you Google the road you see a lot of riders who say they are terrified by the behaviour of drivers along that stretch. Drivers like the OP. Remember, there does not have to be a fatality on a road for speeding drivers to be intimidatory, aggressive and anti-social (although there have been four fatalities on the road in the last 12 months.

Genuine question, why not leave earlier, leave more time for your journey, that way you won't break the law, won't scare other road users and won't get a fine? Other people manage it, why not you?

Of course, looking at your posting history tells us all we need to know about your particular grindy flavour of axe.

[TwistingMyMelon]

MC Bodge said:

Phatboy317 said:

MC Bodge said:

20mph probably is 'plenty' on many narrow residential roads with a lot of parked cars to negotiate.

Yes, but most people don't need to be told that - they do it anyway, regardless of any limits.
And the few that don't are hardly likely to pay much attention to speed limits.

Sadly a lot of people don't drive to the conditions. I see it all of the time around here.

I do agree that they are unlikely to adhere to the speed limit anyway, though, and don't approve of most of the 20mph zones.

Same here, people don't drive to conditions, I live around several 30mph roads and no one does 30

I think the 30 right for the roads and 20 is suitable for the smaller residential roads. Most people do 35-40 and the same people whinge and moan when they get caught

I think its the classic argument of people not walking anywhere and modern cars isolating road noise and sensations. I walk down the roads every day with my dogs and 30mph is a fair old lick for a car from a pedestrians pov, yet inside a car it feels like you are hardly moving...

[supermono]

Lol was waiting for someone to cite pollution. Of course modern cars especially petrols hardly pollute at all creating mostly carbondioxide and water both completely harmless indeed essential for life on earth. To think making everyone bored senseless at arbitrary limits well below what most people would harmlessly do day in day out to appease global warming nuts makes the speed kills brigade appear positively einsteinian.

[Jon1967x]

supermono said:

Lol was waiting for someone to cite pollution. Of course modern cars especially petrols hardly pollute at all creating mostly carbondioxide and water both completely harmless indeed essential for life on earth. To think making everyone bored senseless at arbitrary limits well below what most people would harmlessly do day in day out to appease global warming nuts makes the speed kills brigade appear positively einsteinian.

I'm not a fan of the pollution argument but I do live in the real world and not yours. Pollution and global warming are not the same thing

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jan/07/str...

[Einion Yrth]

Jon1967x said:

supermono said:

Lol was waiting for someone to cite pollution. Of course modern cars especially petrols hardly pollute at all creating mostly carbondioxide and water both completely harmless indeed essential for life on earth. To think making everyone bored senseless at arbitrary limits well below what most people would harmlessly do day in day out to appease global warming nuts makes the speed kills brigade appear positively einsteinian.

I'm not a fan of the pollution argument but I do live in the real world and not yours. Pollution and global warming are not the same thing

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jan/07/str...

And most of the pollution there, of course, is from heavy diesels which are limited to 56 anyway and theoretically to 40 on single carriageway roads. So supermono's point stands, really.

[thatguy11]

I'm very much enjoying the heated discussions I've caused almost worth the price of a speeding ticket

[Blakewater]

TwistingMyMelon said:

Same here, people don't drive to conditions, I live around several 30mph roads and no one does 30

I think the 30 right for the roads and 20 is suitable for the smaller residential roads. Most people do 35-40 and the same people whinge and moan when they get caught

I think its the classic argument of people not walking anywhere and modern cars isolating road noise and sensations. I walk down the roads every day with my dogs and 30mph is a fair old lick for a car from a pedestrians pov, yet inside a car it feels like you are hardly moving...

This is the same reason why many people who campaign for speed traps often end up getting caught out by them themselves. I know of a village where the parish council campaigned for the police to set up a speed trap on the main road. When they did the first person to get caught was the leader of the parish council on his way to the newsagent to buy a newspaper. The second person to get caught was the leader of the parish council on his way back from the newsagent having bought a newspaper. He probably thought the traffic passing by when he was on foot seemed to be going fast but driving in his car an equal speed felt perfectly calm and safe.

[vonhosen]

Phatboy317 said:

vonhosen said:

Millions of people haven't been doing what they do day in day out (I'm not talking about doing 35 in a 30).
How many people have you (for instance) pursued who are trying to evade you through a town etc?

That's a different topic.
I'm talking about the "it's safe for us to exceed the speed limit by however much because we've had the benefit of extra training, but not Joe Public" mindset.

It's not about that though.

The exemption doesn't exist because it's safer for them, or they've had extra training. It exists because of the appreciable benefits of them being able to exceed the limit outweigh any extra risks.