Do you Speed (or mums net has taken over the asylum )
Discussion
ianwayne said:
Speeding in a hgv is even worse. In the weather today, hgvs were still driving 10 feet off the bumper of cars on the M6. Madness. The new over gantry speed limits seem to be optional for many drivers. Maybe the cameras on them haven't caught many yet?
you should see the response I get from car and truck drivers when I do not speed in my hgvthe worst are women carrying their sprogs to school normally
Mercury00 said:
I (honestly) never speed. I don't concern myself with others doing it unless they're up my arse trying to hurry me along, in that case I slow down and annoy them for being a 
.
In another thread you also said "Swift Sport - chav tt/ boy racer judging by the amount of cars trying to touch my rear bumper on a regular basis.".Perhaps you should put your foot down instead of causing annoyance and achieve some slightly more realistic speeds
Yep, I speed everyday, and never feel bad for doing so either. As some have said previously, i have little regard for NSL or anything above 30, and just go whatever speed i feel like. Today however, i thought i'd go 55-60 in NSL as i was seeing if 40MPG was possible (it wasn't).
In built up areas however, I tend to stick to 30, especially when there are pedestrians about, as I do not fancy a stint inside for hitting some thick who stepped out into the road without looking and I was travelling at 40.
Having said that, I don't speed when other's are around so much, as there are too many appalling drivers on the road!!
In built up areas however, I tend to stick to 30, especially when there are pedestrians about, as I do not fancy a stint inside for hitting some thick
who stepped out into the road without looking and I was travelling at 40.Having said that, I don't speed when other's are around so much, as there are too many appalling drivers on the road!!
Mercury00 said:
I (honestly) never speed. I don't concern myself with others doing it unless they're up my arse trying to hurry me along, in that case I slow down and annoy them for being a .
There's only one . in that scenario I'm afraid. Intentionally antagonising other drivers marks you down as a danger IMO.I speed most days, generally in a "sensible" manner (i.e. not in built up areas or 20/30 limits and not in heavy traffic etc). I drive carefully and very considerately (I leave big gaps, only overtake when really safe and try to never get road ragey).
I don't think speeding kills, I think bad driving, bad observation and bad luck tend to kill. But I also don't have any problem if others don't speed. If someone sits infront of me on a smooth flowing and quiet NSL road at 60mph I won't push them or get angry, I'll just wait patiently for a chance to overtake then carry on on my merry illegal way
I don't think speeding kills, I think bad driving, bad observation and bad luck tend to kill. But I also don't have any problem if others don't speed. If someone sits infront of me on a smooth flowing and quiet NSL road at 60mph I won't push them or get angry, I'll just wait patiently for a chance to overtake then carry on on my merry illegal way
La Liga said:
Toltec said:
If I fail to spot the cyclist/pedestrian/car/moped or fail to allow that it is possible for something to move into my path without being able to avoid or at least mitigate a collision then I am at least partially at fault. This includes when travelling below the speed limit, but clearly too fast for the conditions.
Not true. There are many circumstances in which a cyclist can enter into your path without you being able to reasonably foresee it. Yes, it'd be their fault, but hitting them at a lower speed is preferable. Hitting them at a speed higher than the limit brings risk upon the driver. Toltec said:
It isn't about arriving early, it is performing a task at a sustainable level within your abilities allowing for other factors like fuel consumption, fatigue and not annoying other people. When I used to cycle a lot I rode at a speed consistent with reaching my goal as efficiently as possible, sometimes that meant getting to work without having a sweaty crotch and sometimes it meant getting through my front door with muscles like wet spaghetti.
It's about having a range in which to operate within that the majority of road users are able to. You and I may be perfectly capable and happy to make progress on a motorway at much greater speeds than 70 MPH. Many other drivers may not be happy or capable or doing so, or happy or capable of managing the speed differentials. I would say that it is the responsibility of the faster vehicle to manage the speed differential, you cannot go blasting past without assessing the situation, if you have to slow then pick up speed again, then that is what you do.
I appreciate that on the whole most people simply do not have the skill or self control to drive like this, I like to be optimistic though.
Debaser said:
I speed. I don't remember ever being in a car driven by someone who didn't.
That's funny. My mother in law always tells me she is concerned that I speed. It's endlessly entertaining tut-tutting her driving, as she spends quite a lot of the time speeding, typically 40mph in a 30mph zone. When she slows to 30mph, this granny then mentions, under her breath, that "30mph is way too slow on this road". She is right about that, of course.Having been on the road for some years I think that there is a very, very small minority - 'minisculority' perhaps (ha ha - made me laugh anyway) that do not speed. Most take speeding to mean on NSL (70mph) roads but if you look at 30mph zones the majority 'speed' and seem to drive at 35-40mph. You only have to strictly adhere to the limit on a 30mph road and you see the cars queuing behind you and sat on your bumper. I should add that I use a GPS to keep to the limit and not the speedometer.
As per a lot on here in a 30/40 I tend to keep tight to the limit but a NSL 60/70 is there to make progress. Most 20mph limits I have come across are a total joke and aside from outside a schools at opening/closing time are just put there by NIMBYs.
All that said I do tend to drive down my own road (which is the size of a dual carriageway with a grammar school on one side) at 15-20mph as the road surface is so poor. It is also frequently a big gangf##k when the parents pick up their 'lazy fat kids' and - double park/park on yellow lines/park on bends/carry out U turns/fail to indicate when pulling in/over et cetera et cetera (rant over).
Pip
As per a lot on here in a 30/40 I tend to keep tight to the limit but a NSL 60/70 is there to make progress. Most 20mph limits I have come across are a total joke and aside from outside a schools at opening/closing time are just put there by NIMBYs.
All that said I do tend to drive down my own road (which is the size of a dual carriageway with a grammar school on one side) at 15-20mph as the road surface is so poor. It is also frequently a big gangf##k when the parents pick up their 'lazy fat kids' and - double park/park on yellow lines/park on bends/carry out U turns/fail to indicate when pulling in/over et cetera et cetera (rant over).
Pip
Zod said:
La Liga said:
Toltec said:
If I fail to spot the cyclist/pedestrian/car/moped or fail to allow that it is possible for something to move into my path without being able to avoid or at least mitigate a collision then I am at least partially at fault. This includes when travelling below the speed limit, but clearly too fast for the conditions.
Not true. There are many circumstances in which a cyclist can enter into your path without you being able to reasonably foresee it. Yes, it'd be their fault, but hitting them at a lower speed is preferable. Hitting them at a speed higher than the limit brings risk upon the driver. I drive at wide-open-throttle at all times and never brake for anyone or anything (let alone for speed limits). I exceed 170mph in Central London at least once a day, but I can handle it because of my driving skills and general superiority. I am not the person for whom laws are made. I am above them.
p.s. Women want me and men want to be me.
p.s. Women want me and men want to be me.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Zod said:
La Liga said:
Toltec said:
If I fail to spot the cyclist/pedestrian/car/moped or fail to allow that it is possible for something to move into my path without being able to avoid or at least mitigate a collision then I am at least partially at fault. This includes when travelling below the speed limit, but clearly too fast for the conditions.
Not true. There are many circumstances in which a cyclist can enter into your path without you being able to reasonably foresee it. Yes, it'd be their fault, but hitting them at a lower speed is preferable. Hitting them at a speed higher than the limit brings risk upon the driver. No one appears from nowhere, you just haven't anticipated the hazards correctly if you don't foresee it.
Toltec said:
I would say that it is the responsibility of the faster vehicle to manage the speed differential, you cannot go blasting past without assessing the situation, if you have to slow then pick up speed again, then that is what you do.
I appreciate that on the whole most people simply do not have the skill or self control to drive like this, I like to be optimistic though.
I like to think we can raise the standards of driving, but realistically we have to accept a certain general standard. I appreciate that on the whole most people simply do not have the skill or self control to drive like this, I like to be optimistic though.
I expect most under-estimate just how tiring quality observations are. Driving is, mechanically, unconscious competence for most. This suits us as we're lazy creatures. Making it a highly-active process through really intense observations greatly increases our cognitive load. We'll simply resist it and tire. I also expect most people think they're better drivers than they are, especially men with interests in cars! Anyone who has been on a emergency response course will tell you just how tiring it is even doing it for short periods of time. Especially at speed when the rate of information rapidly increases.
You can't remove the human flaws in this respect. More time to think and react generally reduces risk.
WinstonWolf said:
Drive at a speed that will allow you to stop well within the distance you can see to be clear.
No one appears from nowhere, you just haven't anticipated the hazards correctly if you don't foresee it.
The point is that distance can change very quickly though no fault of your own. What do you do? Drive everywhere at 2 MPH in case the stereotypical child is about to run out from behind a parked car you're driving past? Of course not. The point is not hitting the unavoidable at excess speed as it brings risk to you. No one appears from nowhere, you just haven't anticipated the hazards correctly if you don't foresee it.
La Liga said:
Zod said:
If a cyclist flies out into my path on an NSL road where it would be impossible for me to foresee it, then he will be just as dead whether I am driving at 50, 60 or 100 mph.
Quite possibly so. The 100 may see you in court, though. I'm not saying this to be adversarial, I'm just making a point. WinstonWolf said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Zod said:
La Liga said:
Toltec said:
If I fail to spot the cyclist/pedestrian/car/moped or fail to allow that it is possible for something to move into my path without being able to avoid or at least mitigate a collision then I am at least partially at fault. This includes when travelling below the speed limit, but clearly too fast for the conditions.
Not true. There are many circumstances in which a cyclist can enter into your path without you being able to reasonably foresee it. Yes, it'd be their fault, but hitting them at a lower speed is preferable. Hitting them at a speed higher than the limit brings risk upon the driver. No one appears from nowhere, you just haven't anticipated the hazards correctly if you don't foresee it.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff