Do you Speed (or mums net has taken over the asylum )
Discussion
La Liga said:
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.
king up the thread while spouting his bWinstonWolf said:
You continually adapt your speed to suit the conditions.
The conditions including things that can't be reasonably foreseeable. I best creep through traffic lights at 2 MPH so I can check both junctions to ensure there isn't a car being pursued doing 70 MPH that isn't going to stop for the red lights.
La Liga said:
WinstonWolf said:
You continually adapt your speed to suit the conditions.
The conditions including things that can't be reasonably foreseeable. I best creep through traffic lights at 2 MPH so I can check both junctions to ensure there isn't a car being pursued doing 70 MPH that isn't going to stop for the red lights.
La Liga said:
That's the point. There are unavoidable collisions, regardless of how well you're observing / driving for the conditions.
The great majority of unavoidable collisions could have been avoided with better anticipation/observation."I skidded on black ice". Really? You've got your winter coat on, what did you expect?
"He came from behind a parked car". Yeah, people do that, adjust your space/speed to take account of that.
This is the only sort of place where I go fast these days
WinstonWolf said:
The great majority of unavoidable collisions could have been avoided with better anticipation/observation.
I agree, most collisions could indeed be avoided with better anticipation / observation. I originally mentioned this as I was saying that there's simply risk if being involved in a collision whilst doing excess speed even if you're completely not at fault.
La Liga said:
WinstonWolf said:
The great majority of unavoidable collisions could have been avoided with better anticipation/observation.
I agree, most collisions could indeed be avoided with better anticipation / observation. I originally mentioned this as I was saying that there's simply risk if being involved in a collision whilst doing excess speed even if you're completely not at fault.
Don't get me wrong, I've used all the performance in the TVR over the years but outside schools I'm usually slower/better spaced than all the yummy mummies..
I travel at a speed I judge to be safe based on the situation, sometimes this is faster and sometimes slower than the numbers on the poles.
The fact that I have never been involved in any collisions (despite the best efforts of many other drivers) and have a clean license suggests that my judgement of risk is fairly good. I therefore maintain that my judgement of a safe speed to travel at is better than that of a politically motivated bureaucrat coming up with a number applicable to every type of vehicle and driver in every weather and traffic condition then rounding it down to the nearest 10mph.
As they say, rules are for the guidance of wise men and the obedience of fools.
The fact that I have never been involved in any collisions (despite the best efforts of many other drivers) and have a clean license suggests that my judgement of risk is fairly good. I therefore maintain that my judgement of a safe speed to travel at is better than that of a politically motivated bureaucrat coming up with a number applicable to every type of vehicle and driver in every weather and traffic condition then rounding it down to the nearest 10mph.
As they say, rules are for the guidance of wise men and the obedience of fools.
i don't hang about but i will go as fast as the conditions (and mood) allow usually.
I will respect 30 limits, especially in side roads where kids/cats have habit of testing your ABS from time to time.
I have only ever been pulled up once, in 15 years of driving for speeding and that was by an unmarked car - theres a thread about it somewhere.
And Monday night, when it was tipping it down i got pulled up again.. because i was traveling at 30 in a 40 (which had standing water everywhere!)
Copper said, 'you looked suspicious - driving under the speed limit with your window open'
Um, yes, i had my mum in the car, the carriageway was practically flooded and the windows kept steaming up!
That'll teach me for driving slow.
I will respect 30 limits, especially in side roads where kids/cats have habit of testing your ABS from time to time.
I have only ever been pulled up once, in 15 years of driving for speeding and that was by an unmarked car - theres a thread about it somewhere.
And Monday night, when it was tipping it down i got pulled up again.. because i was traveling at 30 in a 40 (which had standing water everywhere!)
Copper said, 'you looked suspicious - driving under the speed limit with your window open'
Um, yes, i had my mum in the car, the carriageway was practically flooded and the windows kept steaming up!
That'll teach me for driving slow.
WinstonWolf said:
The great majority of unavoidable collisions could have been avoided with better anticipation/observation.
"I skidded on black ice". Really? You've got your winter coat on, what did you expect?
"He came from behind a parked car". Yeah, people do that, adjust your space/speed to take account of that.
l
Agree completely. Speeding on a road with parked cars? All of us who think about our driving know that parked cars hide potential danger and we scan them, look under them and through their windows looking for hazards."I skidded on black ice". Really? You've got your winter coat on, what did you expect?
"He came from behind a parked car". Yeah, people do that, adjust your space/speed to take account of that.
l
Zod said:
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.
Prison is a very real possibility.
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.
Yes, people do drive to conditions, and people don't appear from nowhere - which is why a driver will have a very serious or fatal accident only once in several lifetimes, on average.No one appears from nowhere, you just haven't anticipated the hazards correctly if you don't foresee it.
But it's that once-in-several-lifetimes event, where, for example, a cyclist comes charging into the road from behind a wall or hedge, a car-length or two ahead of you. It's such events which cannot reasonably be foreseen, or mitigated.
And it's then such once-in-several-lifetimes events which then get blamed on a handful of mph.
Phatboy317 said:
Yes, people do drive to conditions, and people don't appear from nowhere - which is why a driver will have a very serious or fatal accident only once in several lifetimes, on average.
But it's that once-in-several-lifetimes event, where, for example, a cyclist comes charging into the road from behind a wall or hedge, a car-length or two ahead of you. It's such events which cannot reasonably be foreseen, or mitigated.
And it's then such once-in-several-lifetimes events which then get blamed on a handful of mph.
But if there was less of a handful of MPH there would be less chance of a fatality (or even a collision)But it's that once-in-several-lifetimes event, where, for example, a cyclist comes charging into the road from behind a wall or hedge, a car-length or two ahead of you. It's such events which cannot reasonably be foreseen, or mitigated.
And it's then such once-in-several-lifetimes events which then get blamed on a handful of mph.
Pixelpeep7r said:
But if there was less of a handful of MPH there would be less chance of a fatality (or even a collision)
Would you bet your life on a slightly lower chance of a fatality?And, particularly in a case where someone charges into the road directly in front of you, it wouldn't make the slightest difference to the chance of collision.
La Liga said:
More time to think and react generally reduces risk.
How does that change?You have as much time to react as circumstances at the time permit - you have no control over it.
People drive slower in places and at times when things can and do happen very quickly indeed.
If there's a chance that events are going to allow you little or no time to react then you slow down.
Driving slowly cannot give you more time - cart before horse.
Edited by Phatboy317 on Wednesday 15th October 13:22
TwigtheWonderkid said:
You think? Killing a cyclist when doing 100 in a 60 is going to land you in a whole heap of trouble, regardless of the wrongdoing of the cyclist and the fact that the outcome may have been the same at 60.
Prison is a very real possibility.
The offence would be causing death by dangerous driving. The defence would be that the speed was not dangerous in itself and that the cyclist would have died if I had been driving at or even below the speed limit. If there was evidence to support the defence, I should be acquitted.Prison is a very real possibility.
Phatboy317 said:
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.
Yes, people do drive to conditions, and people don't appear from nowhere - which is why a driver will have a very serious or fatal accident only once in several lifetimes, on average.No one appears from nowhere, you just haven't anticipated the hazards correctly if you don't foresee it.
But it's that once-in-several-lifetimes event, where, for example, a cyclist comes charging into the road from behind a wall or hedge, a car-length or two ahead of you. It's such events which cannot reasonably be foreseen, or mitigated.
And it's then such once-in-several-lifetimes events which then get blamed on a handful of mph.
WinstonWolf said:
Phatboy317 said:
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.
Yes, people do drive to conditions, and people don't appear from nowhere - which is why a driver will have a very serious or fatal accident only once in several lifetimes, on average.No one appears from nowhere, you just haven't anticipated the hazards correctly if you don't foresee it.
But it's that once-in-several-lifetimes event, where, for example, a cyclist comes charging into the road from behind a wall or hedge, a car-length or two ahead of you. It's such events which cannot reasonably be foreseen, or mitigated.
And it's then such once-in-several-lifetimes events which then get blamed on a handful of mph.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff