When is the law not the law??
Discussion
jewhoo said:
Come on DF, you should know the answer to this by now - children and vulnerable road users will die!
When people cause collisions where speed is an aggravating factor, then they should have the book thrown at them.
Are you seriously suggesting that more people will die if we drove at 71mph rather than at 70mph?
7db said:
Do you think that driving past a school at chucking out time at 71mph likely to be more or less dangerous - all other things being equal - than driving past a school at 156mph?
Strictly speaking it depends whether there are any hazards to contend with at the time.
I certainly don't want cars passing my local school at the speed limit. I want them driving at an appropriate speed for the conditions. At 3.15pm that speed might be 10mph. At 5am it might be 50mph.
7db said:
Do you think that driving past a school at chucking out time at 71mph likely to be more or less dangerous - all other things being equal - than driving past a school at 156mph?
Kids can't correctly judge the speed of an oncoming car (I once experienced this when I was young); hence a 30 limit is reasonable as it greatly increases their chance of getting it right.
This quite obviously does not apply when on a motorway.
If a driver can't judge the speed of an oncoming car, then he/she should not be driving at all (e.g. when pulling out from a junction).
>> Edited by smeggy on Tuesday 19th July 17:20
smeggy said:
Do you think that driving past a school at chucking out time at 71mph likely to be more or less dangerous - all other things being equal - than driving past a school at 156mph?
Kids can't correctly judge the speed of an oncoming car (I once experienced this when I was young); hence a 30 limit is reasonable as it greatly increases their chance of getting it right. >> Edited by smeggy on Tuesday 19th July 17:20
You have to remember that an appropriate speed for the conditons is sometimes above and often below the posted speed limit.
7db said:
So lets raise the limits to 71. And then to 72. And then 73.
You draw a line in the sand and stick to it -- wherever that line might be. Sentencing guidelines allow for recognising that 71 and 72 are likely to be less dangerous than 156.
But you aren't even describing what happens at the moment. The reality is that a car drives past a Police Officer at 75mph, and the Police Officer uses his common sense to judge whether or not that is dangerous. The vast majority of the time common sense will dictate that 75mph was perfectly safe and so the Police Officer takes no action.
"Justice" is maintained not by having yet more rule books to consult (e.g. sentencing guidleines) but because the Police use their common sense.
Furthermore, this delegation of authority to individual
Police Officers to judge when the speed limit should and should not be enforced is fundamental to the justification for having the speed limit in the first place. No other system of enforcement can compensate for the arbitrary nature of a speed limit without wasting the public and the courts' time.
>> Edited by ATG on Tuesday 19th July 18:12
volvos70t5 said:I completely agree, but I believe that speeds greater than 30 is automatically inappropriate where it is accepted that children have access to or are crossing the road unaided.
You have to remember that an appropriate speed for the conditons is sometimes above and often below the posted speed limit.
Your speed may may be appropriate for you (as the driver) but not for other road users. Consideration for other road users is the key.
I'm all for pedestrian education and responsibility (bring back the GCC), but let's give tham a chance to judge the situation correctly.
GreenV8S said:
Then make why not just it illegal to drive dangerously, if you want to avoid dangerous driving?
Driving under a fixed speed limit isn't inherently safe, and driving over a fixed speed limit isn't inherently dangerous.
You don't make dangerous drivers safe by forcing them to slow down, and you don't make safe drivers dangerous by allowing them to speed up.
IMO the way to make drivers safer is to improve their driving skills, not teach them to engage cruise control and switch off their brain.
post of the year IMHO
succint, accurate and to the point. argue with that, numpties!
smeggy said:
You have to remember that an appropriate speed for the conditons is sometimes above and often below the posted speed limit.
I completely agree, but I believe that speeds greater than 30 is automatically inappropriate where it is accepted that children have access to or are crossing the road unaided.
If the powers that be were adopting a reasonable approach then they would understand the benefits of advanced driving. Unfortunately, they haven't and they don't.
Passing a school is no different to a thousand other different hazards that drivers have to contend with every single day.
The key issue is whetehr drivers can stop in the distance they can see to be clear, no matter what the time of day (or night).
I do worry that the scamera partnerships (and other misguided people) encouraging people to adhere to the limit in order to be "safe". Safe from prosecution maybe but no less likely to have a collision.
For me, it boils down to this:
Do I want people to adhere to the speed limit without really thinking for themselves? or
Do I want people to drive at an appropriate speed for the prevailing conditions?
For me it is a no-brainer. For peope who have a different agenda, they want people to slow down and they use the "think of the children" arguement to further their own narrow anti-car viewpoint.
volvos70t5 said:
Come on DF, you should know the answer to this by now - children and vulnerable road users will die!
When people cause collisions where speed is an aggravating factor, then they should have the book thrown at them.
Are you seriously suggesting that more people will die if we drove at 71mph rather than at 70mph?
d'oh!jewhoo said:
jewhoo said:
Come on DF, you should know the answer to this by now - children and vulnerable road users will die!
When people cause collisions where speed is an aggravating factor, then they should have the book thrown at them.
Are you seriously suggesting that more people will die if we drove at 71mph rather than at 70mph?
I'm never quite sure whether people really mean what they say or whether they say it tongue in cheek.
Do you really believe vulnerable road users will die if speeds are increased by 1mph?
7db said:
Do you think that driving past a school at chucking out time at 71mph likely to be more or less dangerous - all other things being equal - than driving past a school at 156mph?
What kind of example is that?
Its almost gonna be impossible to get to that speed with all those sprogs running around......
In the example you gave (senseless imho) the answer is that at either of those speeds or any speed in between them is likely to be very dangerous.
But we're not talking about doing such extreme speeds around schools at chucking out time, are we? No.
We're concerned with being allowed to make an informed judgment of a safe speed to travel at, with due regard for your kiddies in the above silly example and with regard to the conditions prevailing at the time.
If you think that its right to be allowed to use discretion while driving inside the speed limits, isnt it also just minutely possible that some may be adult/mature enough to set a SAFE and appropriate speed at over the speed limits????
Speed limits should be for guidance only as they may well NOT be safe to adhere to. The current thinking of some groups, for example promotes blinkered and simplistic mantras: "20's plenty"........bollox it is!
What if visibility is 10 feet or less? Still fancy 20? Not me! And then discretion and judgment is allowed and encouraged. But whoa not if youre exceeding what the sign says! Youve gotta be a madman to do that! I mean, think of the children........
It nearly always comes down to the "children" argument..... Well, i say, "Screw the children! Theyre getting far too much attention." If they learned to cross the road properly and didnt mess about on the verges trying to impose themselves on drivers lawfully going about their business, thered be less of em lying in casualty. Heartless aint i?
We need cops in cars on patrol, not hiding behind bushes trying to hit their numerical targets for the day. If they were out doing what we pay em for then bad driving would be a thing of the past- at whatever speed!
volvos70t5 said:Only true when you are on a deserted motorway/DC. The difference between here and outside a school is that it is (reasonably) impossible for a hazard to jump out in front of you and steal your braking distance (or reaction time).
The key issue is whetehr drivers can stop in the distance they can see to be clear, no matter what the time of day (or night).
volvos70t5 said:The latter is automatic. The former shows consideration for the ignorance or unawareness of other road users. It's not just a case for thinking for yourself, rather a case of also thinking for others.
I do worry that the scamera partnerships (and other misguided people) encouraging people to adhere to the limit in order to be "safe". Safe from prosecution maybe but no less likely to have a collision.
For me, it boils down to this:
Do I want people to adhere to the speed limit without really thinking for themselves? or
Do I want people to drive at an appropriate speed for the prevailing conditions?
If this means that I’m labelled as a ‘think of the children’ type, then so be it. At least someone does!
I’m well known for my really big speeds (as well as my opposition to the current speed camera policy), but I never take the pi55
smeggy said:
The key issue is whetehr drivers can stop in the distance they can see to be clear, no matter what the time of day (or night).
Only true when you are on a deserted motorway/DC. The difference between here and outside a school is that it is (reasonably) impossible for a hazard to jump out in front of you and steal your braking distance (or reaction time).
volvos70t5 said:
I do worry that the scamera partnerships (and other misguided people) encouraging people to adhere to the limit in order to be "safe". Safe from prosecution maybe but no less likely to have a collision.
For me, it boils down to this:
Do I want people to adhere to the speed limit without really thinking for themselves? or
Do I want people to drive at an appropriate speed for the prevailing conditions?
The latter is automatic. The former shows consideration for the ignorance or unawareness of other road users. It's not just a case for thinking for yourself, rather a case of also thinking for others.
If this means that I’m labelled as a ‘think of the children’ type, then so be it. At least someone does!
I’m well known for my really big speeds (as well as my opposition to the current speed camera policy), but I never take the pi55
That is why some people (me included) also use the caveat "and can reasonably expect to remain clear".
Around a school I think it is entirely possible that kids could run out from behind a wall and be in the road within <1 second. Therefore, I reduce my road speed accordingly.
volvos70t5 said:Agreed...it's called "hazard awareness"...just because you can't see one straight away, if you're aware there are blind spots in your view and a reasonable chance a hazard will appear, driving to the conditions requires you to slow down in anticipation of such a hazard.
Around a school I think it is entirely possible that kids could run out from behind a wall and be in the road within <1 second. Therefore, I reduce my road speed accordingly.
Conversely, on an M-way with no blind-spots, one could be forgiven for making progress at rather substantial speeds, because you, in a reasonable world, have visibility of just about everything that could affect you.
havoc said:
Conversely, on an M-way with no blind-spots, one could be forgiven for making progress at rather substantial speeds, because you, in a reasonable world, have visibility of just about everything that could affect you.
But people don't look, or if they do they don't see.
This morning 2 lane NSL DC, not motorway but fast trunk road.
To my horror I see a high wire act from a ~12 yr old male taking place on a bridge parapet. Unstable as hell.
Pegged speed right back watching what he does because it was a matter of time before he fell, just a question of which way.
Just as he did fall a yellow VX220 that I'd also been watching in my mirror passed me at estimated >100mph, timing and positioning just so that impact between kid and VX windscreen would have been perfect to take out kid and driver. My heart in mouth, talk about sixpence half a crown, was not looking forward to the mess.
Fortunately the kid gave a final lurch and managed to twist and fall onto the bridge roadway. Touch and go doesn't do it justice.
FiF
Flat in Fifth said:
But people don't look, or if they do they don't see.
This morning 2 lane NSL DC, not motorway but fast trunk road.
To my horror I see a high wire act from a ~12 yr old male taking place on a bridge parapet. Unstable as hell.
Pegged speed right back watching what he does because it was a matter of time before he fell, just a question of which way.
That is just poor observation on the part of the VX driver (and hence poor driving).
In and of itself, that example is not enough to justify current- and/or slower speed limits, as such an occurrence is surely too rare to legislate for, and must contain a large element of culpability on the part of the kid...
...if he had been playing by a pedestrian crossing and fallen into the road, then that would be a different matter, and you would expect to see a low limit on the approach to the crossing, as the presence of pedestrians (not always paying attention) at a crossing is something that it would be reasonable to forsee.
havoc said:
But people don't look, or if they do they don't see.
This morning 2 lane NSL DC, not motorway but fast trunk road.
To my horror I see a high wire act from a ~12 yr old male taking place on a bridge parapet. Unstable as hell.
Pegged speed right back watching what he does because it was a matter of time before he fell, just a question of which way.
That is just poor observation on the part of the VX driver (and hence poor driving).
In and of itself, that example is not enough to justify current- and/or slower speed limits, as such an occurrence is surely too rare to legislate for, and must contain a large element of culpability on the part of the kid...
...if he had been playing by a pedestrian crossing and fallen into the road, then that would be a different matter, and you would expect to see a low limit on the approach to the crossing, as the presence of pedestrians (not always paying attention) at a crossing is something that it would be reasonable to forsee.
For me it is not a question of whether who is in the right and who is in the wrong. If, due to poor observation, I miss something happening and I end up knocking someone over, then somewhere my driving plan has failed.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff