Parallels between drink driving and speeding

[Derek Smith]

jith said:

Wollemi said:

Esceptico said:

Isn't the limit just an arbitrary number that ignores the specifics of the situation?

No, the current drink drive limit is not arbitrary at all. The limit was set at 80mg /100ml blood as being the point where driving impairment becomes significant.

And what evidence do you have for that? Also does that apply for every single male or female driver regardless of weight, height, physical fitness level, health issues, etc, etc?

The test performed both post and pre legislation support the contention that everyone's driving ability is impaired well below the proscribed limit.

There is not doubt that its effect varies from person to person, sex to sex, muscle level, degree of fat, but at the limit there is impairment.

That many people feel capable of driving after having imbibed, or that rather hilarious; 'I'm a better driver when I've had a few', is indicative of the level of impairment of one's judgement.

Don't get impairment mixed with drunkenness; the two are significantly different. The former means that alcohol has affected the person.

The reason suggested for people believing they drive better after a drink is that when sober they'd have hesitated due to risk. Alcohol affects a person's ability to consider risks.

[Efbe]

singlecoil said:

MrBarry123 said:

singlecoil said:

Efbe said:

what a completely stupid thread.

What a completely stupid response.

Not really.

I don't understand the purpose of this thread either. All it's becoming is a debate regarding whether speeding or drink driving is more the dangerous act.

Yes really. There are far 'stupider' threads on PH than this one (easy enough as this one isn't stupid at all) but I don't post on them, I ignore them.

I spent the time to read it and am not mature enough to just let it slide.

There are more stupiderer threads, but you can usually spot them from the title. this one looked vaguely interesting at the outset.

[singlecoil]

MrBarry123 said:

singlecoil said:

Yes really. There are far 'stupider' threads on PH than this one (easy enough as this one isn't stupid at all) but I don't post on them, I ignore them.

You deserve a sticker for your level of maturity.

You second post on this topic is about on a par with your first.

[mclwanB]

Jayho said:

People who speed about in residential areas though, they're just as bad as DD in my opinion.

This. NSL speeding appropriate to the conditions, road, car and driver totally different imo

Edited by mclwanB on Tuesday 10th May 09:07

[RobinOakapple]

mclwanB said:

Jayho said:

People who speed about in residential areas though, they're just as bad as DD in my opinion.

This. NSL speeding appropriate to the conditions, road, car and driver totally different imo

Edited by mclwanB on Tuesday 10th May 09:07

Thing is, who is going to assess whether the car and the driver are up to whatever speed he has chosen for that road? People who aren't very good at things often don't realise it.

[TooMany2cvs]

RobinOakapple said:

Thing is, who is going to assess whether the car and the driver are up to whatever speed he has chosen for that road? People who aren't very good at things often don't realise it.

So every stretch of road in the country, in every weather and traffic condition, is always suitable for driving along at precisely the speed limit?

Because, unless that's what you're trying to tell us, then the simple answer is that we have to ALWAYS trust inherently every single driver to decide what's an appropriate speed for any road. It's just that speed limits set a legal upper bound on that choice.

And, if that IS what you're trying to tell us, then hold on while I set some video cameras up outside my gate, because watching you trying to do NSL down this lane is going to be seriously popular on YouTube. If you do actually manage to get round the S-bends, then the only question is whether you're still airborne or have landed before you fail to negotiate the corner and hit the trees.

[RobinOakapple]

TooMany2cvs said:

RobinOakapple said:

Thing is, who is going to assess whether the car and the driver are up to whatever speed he has chosen for that road? People who aren't very good at things often don't realise it.

So every stretch of road in the country, in every weather and traffic condition, is always suitable for driving along at precisely the speed limit?

Because, unless that's what you're trying to tell us, then the simple answer is that we have to ALWAYS trust inherently every single driver to decide what's an appropriate speed for any road. It's just that speed limits set a legal upper bound on that choice.

And, if that IS what you're trying to tell us, then hold on while I set some video cameras up outside my gate, because watching you trying to do NSL down this lane is going to be seriously popular on YouTube. If you do actually manage to get round the S-bends, then the only question is whether you're still airborne or have landed before you fail to negotiate the corner and hit the trees.

I'm sorry you went to the trouble of writing all that, and still ended up with some seriously idiotic bks. You've taken a question and extrapolated into some really quite crazy stuff.

How on earth did you manage to convert my question into your first sentence? The rest of your post is nonsense and I won't dignify it with a reply.

[TooMany2cvs]

RobinOakapple said:

TooMany2cvs said:

RobinOakapple said:

Thing is, who is going to assess whether the car and the driver are up to whatever speed he has chosen for that road? People who aren't very good at things often don't realise it.

So every stretch of road in the country, in every weather and traffic condition, is always suitable for driving along at precisely the speed limit?

Because, unless that's what you're trying to tell us, then the simple answer is that we have to ALWAYS trust inherently every single driver to decide what's an appropriate speed for any road. It's just that speed limits set a legal upper bound on that choice.

And, if that IS what you're trying to tell us, then hold on while I set some video cameras up outside my gate, because watching you trying to do NSL down this lane is going to be seriously popular on YouTube. If you do actually manage to get round the S-bends, then the only question is whether you're still airborne or have landed before you fail to negotiate the corner and hit the trees.

I'm sorry you went to the trouble of writing all that, and still ended up with some seriously idiotic bks. You've taken a question and extrapolated into some really quite crazy stuff.

How on earth did you manage to convert my question into your first sentence? The rest of your post is nonsense and I won't dignify it with a reply.

Sorry, but you were the one with the crazy bks.

You asked...

RobinOakapple said:

Thing is, who is going to assess whether the car and the driver are up to whatever speed he has chosen for that road? People who aren't very good at things often don't realise it.

Think about that for a moment, if you can.

We HAVE to trust drivers ALL THE TIME, in every condition, to assess whether they're up to the speed they've chosen. Because, if we don't, then we're saying that we must be telling them all the time what speed is right. Since the only way we tell them anything ABOUT speed is via a limit, that must mean that the limit is always safe and appropriate. Clearly, it isn't - so we get back to the fact that every driver must be trusted to assess their speed. With me so far?

So why does that ability somehow magically stop at a number that was defined as a default in the 1930s or the 1960s?

[RobinOakapple]

TooMany2cvs said:

We HAVE to trust drivers ALL THE TIME, in every condition, to assess whether they're up to the speed they've chosen. Because, if we don't, then we're saying that we must be telling them all the time what speed is right.

That sentence is simply wrong, but the fact that you have said it indicates the depth of your misunderstanding. No-one is trusting any driver to do anything, it's not about trust and it never has been.

Speed limits simply inform drivers that there is an upper limit to whatever speed they choose to drive at. It doesn't tell them that they will be safe as long as they stay within that limit (though that's a common straw man argument). It may well be that if they choose to drive at or even below that limit that they will have an accident and/or be prosecuted for some other offence such as dangerous driving if driving at that speed is not appropriate.

[RobinOakapple]

Here's some extra reading for you on this subject which should have been covered when you took your driving test

https://www.gov.uk/speed-limits

"You must not drive faster than the speed limit for the type of road and your type of vehicle. The speed limit is the absolute maximum - it doesn’t mean it’s safe to drive at this speed in all conditions."

[TooMany2cvs]

RobinOakapple said:

That sentence is simply wrong, but the fact that you have said it indicates the depth of your misunderstanding. No-one is trusting any driver to do anything, it's not about trust and it never has been.

Speed limits simply inform drivers that there is an upper limit to whatever speed they choose to drive at. It doesn't tell them that they will be safe as long as they stay within that limit (though that's a common straw man argument). It may well be that if they choose to drive at or even below that limit that they will have an accident and/or be prosecuted for some other offence such as dangerous driving if driving at that speed is not appropriate.

Great. So going back to your original question...

RobinOakapple said:

Thing is, who is going to assess whether the car and the driver are up to whatever speed he has chosen for that road? People who aren't very good at things often don't realise it.

...the answer is "Their driving test examiner".

So why does the existence of a speed limit somehow miraculously stop that ability? It provides an upper bound to legality, sure. But it doesn't affect the driver's ability to assess.

[RobinOakapple]

TooMany2cvs said:

So why does the existence of a speed limit somehow miraculously stop that ability? It provides an upper bound to legality, sure. But it doesn't affect the driver's ability to assess.

I don't see how I can answer that question without repeating myself. It would seem that your position on speed limits is at odds with the general view, and that's why you are asking questions about them that don't seem to make sense.

[telecat]

RobinOakapple said:

Here's some extra reading for you on this subject which should have been covered when you took your driving test

https://www.gov.uk/speed-limits

"You must not drive faster than the speed limit for the type of road and your type of vehicle. The speed limit is the absolute maximum - it doesn’t mean it’s safe to drive at this speed in all conditions."

Many Speed limits have been dropped however. Many near me have gone from 60 to 40. Perversely I am noticing more accidents. Unless the nature of the road has changed then it must still be safe at the higher limit. My reactions on that test by the way were best 244ms and average 275ms. Sober if a little tired this morning.

[RobinOakapple]

telecat said:

RobinOakapple said:

Here's some extra reading for you on this subject which should have been covered when you took your driving test

https://www.gov.uk/speed-limits

"You must not drive faster than the speed limit for the type of road and your type of vehicle. The speed limit is the absolute maximum - it doesn’t mean it’s safe to drive at this speed in all conditions."

Many Speed limits have been dropped however. Many near me have gone from 60 to 40. Perversely I am noticing more accidents. Unless the nature of the road has changed then it must still be safe at the higher limit. My reactions on that test by the way were best 244ms and average 275ms. Sober if a little tired this morning.

There's that straw man thing again. No-one including the people who set the limit has ever said that it is safe to drive at that speed.

Safety is not the only reason speed limits are set and changed, it may well be that whatever the cause of the latest change it had nothing to do with safety.

[TooMany2cvs]

RobinOakapple said:

No-one including the people who set the limit has ever said that it is safe to drive at that speed.

Equally, nobody ever said that it wasn't.

There is no direct correlation between a speed limit and a safe or appropriate speed for any stretch of road - merely a legal one.

[RobinOakapple]

TooMany2cvs said:

RobinOakapple said:

No-one including the people who set the limit has ever said that it is safe to drive at that speed.

Equally, nobody ever said that it wasn't.

There is no direct correlation between a speed limit and a safe or appropriate speed for any stretch of road - merely a legal one.

Your point being?

[singlecoil]

RobinOakapple said:

TooMany2cvs said:

RobinOakapple said:

No-one including the people who set the limit has ever said that it is safe to drive at that speed.

Equally, nobody ever said that it wasn't.

There is no direct correlation between a speed limit and a safe or appropriate speed for any stretch of road - merely a legal one.

Your point being?

Beats me, he's obviously bothered about something but it really isn't clear what.

[Esceptico]

TooMany2cvs said:

Equally, nobody ever said that it wasn't.

There is no direct correlation between a speed limit and a safe or appropriate speed for any stretch of road - merely a legal one.

Well that is simply not true.

As a general principle the higher the number of hazards or risk of hazards the lower the speed limit. In urban areas with lots of pedestrians, cyclists, junctions, driveways and people parking and pulling out it is much safer with a speed limit of 30 rather than 70. On a well sighted dual carriageway or motorway then a much higher speed than 30 is still safe.

Speed limits are based on average situations and not the extreme. I don't understand why that is a problem for some people to grasp. On average it wouldn't be safe to have a 70 limit in town, even if at 3 am it might be safe to drive at 70.

Just because some roads may have the "wrong" limit does not mean that the whole system is wrong. Speed limits are set by people and people make mistakes or are open to undue influence.

Also, just because it could be argued that the current limits could be different (some lower and some higher) doesn't mean that the system as a whole is wrong.

[TooMany2cvs]

Esceptico said:

TooMany2cvs said:

Equally, nobody ever said that it wasn't.

There is no direct correlation between a speed limit and a safe or appropriate speed for any stretch of road - merely a legal one.

Well that is simply not true.

Really...?

Esceptico said:

As a general principle the higher the number of hazards or risk of hazards the lower the speed limit.

OK, so you don't understand what "direct correlation" means.

[0000]