Speedos; Do we really NEED one?
Discussion
Basically the question is this: Do we actually NEED (in the vital, essential sense of the word) a speedo to drive safely?
The question was asked a couple of weeks ago on safespeed's forum for the resident Cumbria scamership walla's to put their considerable cogitive skills ( 3 good cells between them at last count) to the test.
Thus far, no replies, im so surprised.
I have hypothesised on the speedo question for a while now, and have concluded that theyre an unecessary distraction to safe driving.
Remember, the question is: Do we NEED a speedo to drive at a SAFE speed, not do we need one to drive at A speed.
If we dont need a speedo to drive safely, then ill venture that we dont need speed limits or signs, and further to that: Speed enforcement is unecessary!
What are the collectives views on my cogitations?
The question was asked a couple of weeks ago on safespeed's forum for the resident Cumbria scamership walla's to put their considerable cogitive skills ( 3 good cells between them at last count) to the test.
Thus far, no replies, im so surprised.
I have hypothesised on the speedo question for a while now, and have concluded that theyre an unecessary distraction to safe driving.
Remember, the question is: Do we NEED a speedo to drive at a SAFE speed, not do we need one to drive at A speed.
If we dont need a speedo to drive safely, then ill venture that we dont need speed limits or signs, and further to that: Speed enforcement is unecessary!
What are the collectives views on my cogitations?
The logic is fautless but providing you assume everyone will drive at a safe speed.
The moment someone drives at inappropraite speed, you need speed limites, and if you have speed limits, you need a speedo to determine if you are breaking (queue the experts on here who will be able to use the rev counter and multiple by the gear ratio and the driving gods who can tell their speed accuratly from the sound of their engine)
The moment someone drives at inappropraite speed, you need speed limites, and if you have speed limits, you need a speedo to determine if you are breaking (queue the experts on here who will be able to use the rev counter and multiple by the gear ratio and the driving gods who can tell their speed accuratly from the sound of their engine)
I don't need a speedo to drive safely from minute to minute. When I'm on track I hardly even glance at the speedo, I don't think about speed/stopping distances/braking points numerically I do it based on my experience of how much grip there is available and how sharp the corner is. Similarly on public roads I monitor the speedo to keep me safe from fines, but as soon as any real hazards appear I ignore the speedo and concentrate on the real world. I've driven hundreds of miles without a working speedo and felt no more dangerous than normal.
The one thing a speedo is useful for (apart from guarding againt fines for exceeding a number on a stick) is to 'recalibrate' my perception of how fast I am travelling when the environment changes. For example after an hour on the motorway, 40mph feels like I am crawling along and unless I consciously reassess my speed and stopping distances it is easy to misjudge the appropriate speed.
The one thing a speedo is useful for (apart from guarding againt fines for exceeding a number on a stick) is to 'recalibrate' my perception of how fast I am travelling when the environment changes. For example after an hour on the motorway, 40mph feels like I am crawling along and unless I consciously reassess my speed and stopping distances it is easy to misjudge the appropriate speed.
deltafox said:
Do we NEED a speedo to drive at a SAFE speed
Nope.
deltafox said:
do we need one to drive at A speed.
Yep.
deltafox said:
If we dont need a speedo to drive safely, then ill venture that we dont need speed limits or signs, and further to that: Speed enforcement is unecessary!
It's not that WE don't need a speedo, it's that SOME don't need a speedo. Some do. The brain dead chavtastic burberry wearing corsa driving waster WON'T drive safely. So there has to be A limit. It's not for you and I ('cos we can drive safely can't we), it's for them.
GreenV8s has a very good point about having a frame of reference. I rarely look at my speedo when pressing on, instead I judge the road conditions and how the car feels as I drive, which is easy to do on the twisties. However, on the drudge of a motorway it is very easy to let your speed creep up until your perception of stopping distances and the amount of time you have to react becomes skewed. When everything is moving at high speed you percieve all the other cars and your own as been virtually motionless until something goes wrong and the world speeds up very quickly 
Speedo are useful gauges but not essential. Same way as a pilot doesn't need an altimieter on a clear day but its still useful to have.
As far as speedos and speed limits are concerned Deltafox is correct.....
Speedo are useful gauges but not essential. Same way as a pilot doesn't need an altimieter on a clear day but its still useful to have.
As far as speedos and speed limits are concerned Deltafox is correct.....
PeterE’s Safespeed sig was about spot on when he used the quotation;
Laws are for the guidance of wise men and the blind obedience of fools. – Solon
This applies in the context of DeltaF’s question, and you can substitute ‘Speed limits' or ‘Speedometers’ in place of ‘Laws’.
I guess the problem left for the enforcers is in remotely assessing the intellect.
Laws are for the guidance of wise men and the blind obedience of fools. – Solon
This applies in the context of DeltaF’s question, and you can substitute ‘Speed limits' or ‘Speedometers’ in place of ‘Laws’.
I guess the problem left for the enforcers is in remotely assessing the intellect.
To me - I feel the speed - feel more or less in tune with car. Always case of judging distance ahead and being able to stop safely in distance can see to be clear.
Only time I glance at speedo ist to check if at/near known zap site or if useful gadget bleeps - normally find in built up area/hazard infest area - speed need no adjust... but have to reduce on motorways
sometimes Ist as Milner says - easy to increase speed on motorway...but again - you tend to drive in flow of traffic and keeping decent distance as well - watching road ahead and keeping the glance in the mirror to be aware of what ist around at any one time.
Only time I glance at speedo ist to check if at/near known zap site or if useful gadget bleeps - normally find in built up area/hazard infest area - speed need no adjust... but have to reduce on motorways
sometimes Ist as Milner says - easy to increase speed on motorway...but again - you tend to drive in flow of traffic and keeping decent distance as well - watching road ahead and keeping the glance in the mirror to be aware of what ist around at any one time.As a social experiment, I imagine that removing all speed limit signs and introducing better policing with heavier penalties for dangerous driving would actually reduce deaths and casualties on our roads.
People in the majority drive at a speed they're comfortable with. The idiots who drive dangerously ignore speed limits anyway.....
People in the majority drive at a speed they're comfortable with. The idiots who drive dangerously ignore speed limits anyway.....
deltafox said:I only use it to ensure I obey the speed limits when they change, other than that I’m just too pre-occupied with driving to be taking my eyes off the road. Tachometer is useful though when climbing hills in underpowered cars.
Basically the question is this: Do we actually NEED (in the vital, essential sense of the word) a speedo to drive safely?
My old man was a motorcycle riding instructor when he was not quite such an old man, he always said “drive for the road you can see” so I figure that safety should come before speed.
bluepolarbear said:
The logic is fautless but providing you assume everyone will drive at a safe speed.
The moment someone drives at inappropraite speed, you need speed limites, and if you have speed limits, you need a speedo to determine if you are breaking (queue the experts on here who will be able to use the rev counter and multiple by the gear ratio and the driving gods who can tell their speed accuratly from the sound of their engine)
Yes. That and the fact many people drive at a speed they percieve to be safe - but, in fact, isn't.
Yes we do need speed limits, I fear. And some speed enforcement too.
BUT
1) Many limits are bollox.
2) Enforcement of bollox limits in an absolute manner breeds utter disrespect for *all* limits - not just the bollox ones.
I deplore bloody speed cameras. Which is a shame because they could be used effectively.
e.g. 1. Big sign saying speed camera ahead - guarding dangerous 180 hairpin. Speed limit 30mph. Then stick visible camers before the hazard. Chances are even the young hoons can't miss it and will slow down and therefore not crash.
e.g. 2. No signs apart from a tiny one saying "beware of the leopard". Around blind hairpin stick camera on exit.
1: does something useful and will catch no-one other than those who drive dangerously. No money to be made.
2: will catch some of the same people. Will also catch loads of people coming around a bit quickly. Will also catch loads of people accelerating out of the hazard perfectly safely. Will make ££££.
The problem is that 2 above has become the norm. And is why we have to abandon the whole current scheme of enforcement and limits to start afresh. The SCPs must be disbanded and enforcement given back to Trafpol. If Trafpol - not allowed to keep a penny - decide a particular kind of enforcement is appropriate it will get a lot more public support than the whole, current and utterly "systematically corrupt" system.
This is not an attack on individuals in SCPs. The organisations have a profit motive they should never have been allowed to get. It is *this* that requires that they be abolished.
Speedos are a necessary guide for a couple of reasons.
Speed limits indicate the speed deemed appropriate maximum for an area – presumably having taken account of many factors, hazard density, the need for pedestrians to cross the road, noise, safety, social improvement etc. We often do not know the entire reason for the application and enforcement of a speed limit, but reasons of environmental and social improvement may cause an NSL road to be reduced to 40mph (and enforced) although the NSL speed in itself was never a safety issue.
Should we have a problem with this type of limit application? Personally I don’t, although I may have an issue with the enforcement methods. A591 at Ings is a prime example of this type of situation.
I would like this type of limit which has originated from alternative concerns to be indicated thus, perhaps with an explanatory board on entry to the village, and perhaps a different coloured speed limit sign. This should then be backed up by intelligent (quality not quantity) enforcement.
So speedos are necessary to guide us to these limits, whether applied for safety or social factors, but in general their use while driving is detrimental to road safety, if all other motoring attributes are used (the C.O.A.S.T. model).
I can recall a few occasions when on fairly serious IR calls. I’ve chosen a speed which is correct for the road and conditions, but an inquisitive glance at the speedo can often lead to a bit of a mental wobble, because normal instincts might tell you that 135mph is far too fast for the approaching dog leg bend. The instinctive reduction of 20mph simply serves to unbalance the car and add risk to the manoeuvre, which would have been entirely safe had I not glanced down.
The important facts about speedos and safety for the COAST driver must therefore be:
They are an important guide to the appropriate speed, especially in situations where other factors might be telling you otherwise.
They should only be looked at when the driver deems it safe to do so.
Speed limits indicate the speed deemed appropriate maximum for an area – presumably having taken account of many factors, hazard density, the need for pedestrians to cross the road, noise, safety, social improvement etc. We often do not know the entire reason for the application and enforcement of a speed limit, but reasons of environmental and social improvement may cause an NSL road to be reduced to 40mph (and enforced) although the NSL speed in itself was never a safety issue.
Should we have a problem with this type of limit application? Personally I don’t, although I may have an issue with the enforcement methods. A591 at Ings is a prime example of this type of situation.
I would like this type of limit which has originated from alternative concerns to be indicated thus, perhaps with an explanatory board on entry to the village, and perhaps a different coloured speed limit sign. This should then be backed up by intelligent (quality not quantity) enforcement.
So speedos are necessary to guide us to these limits, whether applied for safety or social factors, but in general their use while driving is detrimental to road safety, if all other motoring attributes are used (the C.O.A.S.T. model).
I can recall a few occasions when on fairly serious IR calls. I’ve chosen a speed which is correct for the road and conditions, but an inquisitive glance at the speedo can often lead to a bit of a mental wobble, because normal instincts might tell you that 135mph is far too fast for the approaching dog leg bend. The instinctive reduction of 20mph simply serves to unbalance the car and add risk to the manoeuvre, which would have been entirely safe had I not glanced down.
The important facts about speedos and safety for the COAST driver must therefore be:
They are an important guide to the appropriate speed, especially in situations where other factors might be telling you otherwise.
They should only be looked at when the driver deems it safe to do so.
I accept that speed limits do have a role in establshing a generally acceptable safe speed for an environment.
However, I fundamentally disagree with the way that exceeding the speed limit is being treated as an absolute offence in its own right. If you drove dangerously below the speed limit you would probably be charged with driving without due care/attention, or dangerous driving, or some such. The circumstances would be considered when deciding whether an offense had been committed. However, when your speed changes from 1 mph below the limit to 1 mph over the limit, suddenly the rules change. Now you're guilty regardless of the circumstances, even if you were driving completely safely just the same as the hundreds of people around you doing just the same thing.
IMO speeding should not be an offense. Excessive speed should be used as evidence of dangerous driving, if it was actually dangerous. If you can prove that in fact it wasn't dangerous, for example highly trained police officer in high performance car under safe conditions, then no harm has been done and no offense has been committed.
Speed limits introduced for environmental reasons are even worse imo. If you want to restrict noise, then introduce a law based on actual noise. It is plainly absurd to penalise somebody for driving quietly in excess of a speed limit, if the only reason for the speed limit is to keep the noise down. And penalties that might seem appropriate for truly dangerous driving (fine, substantial increase in insurance costs, potentially loss of license, [job, [home, [family]]]]) are grossly excessive for potentially making too much noise.
Some speed limits are introduced in order to improve traffic flow. This gets even worse. Now a driver driving safely can suffer the same harsh penalties described above, for the crime of impeding traffic flow even when the road is deserted. It's absurd.
The principle that speed limits are something that should be rigorously and strictly enforced is just fundamentally wrong imo.
However, I fundamentally disagree with the way that exceeding the speed limit is being treated as an absolute offence in its own right. If you drove dangerously below the speed limit you would probably be charged with driving without due care/attention, or dangerous driving, or some such. The circumstances would be considered when deciding whether an offense had been committed. However, when your speed changes from 1 mph below the limit to 1 mph over the limit, suddenly the rules change. Now you're guilty regardless of the circumstances, even if you were driving completely safely just the same as the hundreds of people around you doing just the same thing.
IMO speeding should not be an offense. Excessive speed should be used as evidence of dangerous driving, if it was actually dangerous. If you can prove that in fact it wasn't dangerous, for example highly trained police officer in high performance car under safe conditions, then no harm has been done and no offense has been committed.
Speed limits introduced for environmental reasons are even worse imo. If you want to restrict noise, then introduce a law based on actual noise. It is plainly absurd to penalise somebody for driving quietly in excess of a speed limit, if the only reason for the speed limit is to keep the noise down. And penalties that might seem appropriate for truly dangerous driving (fine, substantial increase in insurance costs, potentially loss of license, [job, [home, [family]]]]) are grossly excessive for potentially making too much noise.
Some speed limits are introduced in order to improve traffic flow. This gets even worse. Now a driver driving safely can suffer the same harsh penalties described above, for the crime of impeding traffic flow even when the road is deserted. It's absurd.
The principle that speed limits are something that should be rigorously and strictly enforced is just fundamentally wrong imo.
I assume therefore you're suggesting that speed limit (prohibition) signs are swapped for advisory signs?
Again all that's been said is very logical but unfortunately speed limits are set for varying reasons, as discussed, and various risk factors are considered by the powers that be when arriving at an appropriate figure. The limits will always be set to make allowance for the nervous, the clueless and the downright lunatic. That's why you'll come across a 'max 50 around the bend' sign - never mind the fact one thinks one can safely round it at 90mph in one's TVR Sagaris...
Back on topic - asking do we need a speedo is like asking do we need a watch - its not essential most of the time but its nice to know its there!
>> Edited by jazzyjeff on Monday 19th September 12:53
Again all that's been said is very logical but unfortunately speed limits are set for varying reasons, as discussed, and various risk factors are considered by the powers that be when arriving at an appropriate figure. The limits will always be set to make allowance for the nervous, the clueless and the downright lunatic. That's why you'll come across a 'max 50 around the bend' sign - never mind the fact one thinks one can safely round it at 90mph in one's TVR Sagaris...
Back on topic - asking do we need a speedo is like asking do we need a watch - its not essential most of the time but its nice to know its there!
>> Edited by jazzyjeff on Monday 19th September 12:53
I agree with most of the comments here especially around driving in the real world and driving at a speed commensurate with visibility (N Yorks have Sheep which sleep in the road) if you drove at the speed limit all the time you would not be driving long.
The number of times people brake suddenly without a glance in thier rear view mirror when they see a speed camera and they are already below the speed limit,is to put it mildly, dangerous.
In contrast however areas around pedestrian precincts, schools etc where young children can "appear" are suitable for some more effective measures, because the issue is death / serious injury, if a child is hit at 40mph instead of maybe 30 mph.
Protection not speed cameras by the way and defintiely not speed humps. Prefer better traffic / pedestrian separation.
The number of times people brake suddenly without a glance in thier rear view mirror when they see a speed camera and they are already below the speed limit,is to put it mildly, dangerous.
In contrast however areas around pedestrian precincts, schools etc where young children can "appear" are suitable for some more effective measures, because the issue is death / serious injury, if a child is hit at 40mph instead of maybe 30 mph.
Protection not speed cameras by the way and defintiely not speed humps. Prefer better traffic / pedestrian separation.
deltafox said:
The question was asked a couple of weeks ago on safespeed's forum for the resident Cumbria scamership walla's to put their considerable cogitive skills ( 3 good cells between them at last count) to the test.
Thus far, no replies, im so surprised.
Indeed, how surprising.
I truly don't think anyone should need a speedo to drive.
Purely from personal experience, never once in years of driving and motorcycle use have I needed to look at my speedo in order to tell me whether my approach to the road ahead was appropriate.
If anyone needs to look at their speedo to say to themself "...ahhh, I'm OK, my speedo says N mph, so everything's OK..." they are guilty of, if not utter mind numbing stupidity, at least a lack of understanding of car / motorcycle control and the environment they encounter.
Warning signs about hazards ahead fine, but appropriate speed itself is dependent of the machine being used, the weather, the volume of traffic, people on the pavement, side turnings, the topography etc etc all of which vary by the second.
Just like to say ive driven my MG for 3 years now with a broken speedo. Fairly sure its the cable that snapped but as its in my toyota gearbox conversion one (The midget that also has the turbo) I just havnt got round to having a new cable made to fit the toyota box and the smiths clock.
So as a simple answer.
No, not needed and havnt used it for 3 years (MOT man always says the same thing each year, you havnt done MANY miles then checks and say ohh you havnt done ANY miles)
So as a simple answer.
No, not needed and havnt used it for 3 years (MOT man always says the same thing each year, you havnt done MANY miles then checks and say ohh you havnt done ANY miles)
Having just got back from a 2300 mile cruise around Europe - the simple answer is no!
As we all know our continental cousins are (still) far more relaxed about breaking the speed limit, and it was a joy to just make progress at a safe and enjoyable speed.
Upon returning to Blighty I was forced to watch my speedo at every moment - and the driving was far less enjoyable, more stessful and a damn site more dangerous.
For the record, I chickened out at 130mph on the autobahn - strange though... I didn't crash or kill any children
As we all know our continental cousins are (still) far more relaxed about breaking the speed limit, and it was a joy to just make progress at a safe and enjoyable speed.
Upon returning to Blighty I was forced to watch my speedo at every moment - and the driving was far less enjoyable, more stessful and a damn site more dangerous.
For the record, I chickened out at 130mph on the autobahn - strange though... I didn't crash or kill any children
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff