We make the standards and we make the rules...

[SK425]

Mr Grayson said:

OK so you want it both ways, which is fair enough

No, it's not the maximum speed under all conditions which may be safe, not to be exceeded (on grounds of safety) by so much as 1 mph. Neither is it a representative safe speed limit for some stretches of road which may allow much faster speeds safely. It's an arbitrary number on a stick. It was chosen, however, for a reason, which is that it represents a safe-ish speed for a good representative cross-section of urban roads. I know that. You know that. We're just trying to establish whether we believe we can safely ignore it. On the whole, the contributors to this thread don't ignore the 30 limit, although the OP has proposed a situation when he does so, in his own interest, as he believes, safely.

Will that do?

Yes, that's fine .

The bit I've emboldened there relates to 30 limits. You could say exactly the same about NSL 60 if you just changed 'urban roads' to 'rural roads' at the end, which is why I don't really understand the point Dr J made that drew me into this part of the conversation.

[Zeeky]

I thought the speed limit was the maximum speed we can exercise our duty to drive at an appropriate speed rather than a generally safe speed. Maybe they are not mutually exclusive.

[Jon1967x]

vonhosen said:

There's a lot of guessing going on here.

You won't get a fault on your DSA test for not signalling where it wasn't needed. You'll get a fault for omitting a signal that was required, incorrectly or confusingly signalling (usually from not cancelling a signal that was required), or signalling at the wrong time (i.e. too late).

If you max out on every gear to get to the limit as quick as possible you will get a mark against you in the 'eco driving' box - which doesn't count for the fault totals at present.

I was under the impression that the DSA test required you to evidence you knew what you were doing (hence in my day instructors suggesting a deliberate look at the rear view mirror for instance to show you'd used it). I suggested that without commentary the lack of a shoulder check or indicating to go from L1 to L2 could be construed badly by an examiner irrespective on whether it was needed if they were unconvinced the driver had made a conscious decision. I thought part of the reason why commentary was required on more advanced tests was this provided insight into the drivers thought processes and such a situation would be explained by the driver. For a beginner, a shoulder check and indicator seems a safer and much simpler concept to explain and adopt (albeit not advanced driving).

I was also given instruction as a learner which in hindsight and taken literally now would in my opinion be inappropriate. The example I gave was a fairly underpowered car and being told to accelerate quite hard for it to keep up with the flow of traffic and not dawdle. In a more powerful car I imagine (actually I hope for the sake of the ones I know and about to start learning) an instructor would moderate the request to one of reasonable not max acceleration. Hence, its about the context in which you are told things.

If that's guessing as you put it then I'm happy to try and understand the fault in the logic by those that are involved with learners.

As for NSL being treated differently - I posed this question originally and its caused much debate. I originally saw no reason why it should be treated differently, I'm still of the general mind set that you should drive to the conditions and just take the speed limit as one of the many inputs. I can however think of very few roads under red ringed limits where the road itself didn't allow the speed limit to be reached, whereas the NSL applies to roads where it clearly can't be. Outside my house is one. On that basis the NSL offers no guidance to a deemed safe max upper limit for that road, just a legal limit, and that reason, if for no other, it is different.

Edited by Jon1967x on Friday 30th May 16:15

[feef]

With regards to the OP, with a little adjustment, I think it could ask the same question without encountering issues with hypocrisy or selective rule breaking.

There's a section of NSL road I know which requires some degree of concentration to actually travel it at 60mph. Most drivers will potter along the initial twisty few miles at 45, perhaps 50 at most but those that know it can turn it up a little and 60 is actually a sensible maximum speed, irrespective of the fact that it's also the legal limit on that stretch of road.

Now in the same manner as in the OP, there is a relatively long exit to a village, clear and open but 30mph. Certainly, on the approach to the village, the 30 starts at a pretty reasonable place but in leaving the town, the frustration and impatience of drivers is noticeable and few stick to the 30 before reaching the NSL signs.

The question remains as to one should speed up to a little over the 30 posted limit such that it's less likely that you're overtaken within the 30 otherwise you end up stuck behind someone who's slowed to 45 for the first bend.

[Variomatic]

Zeeky said:

The complexity or otherwise of the opinion is not the point. The point is whose opinion is relevant?

Why seek others' approval of breaking one limit when you are happy to break another limit regardless of their opinion?

Having only recently discovered Reg's posts on here, my reading of the original post wasn't that he was "seeking approval" but rather that, like all his other posts, he was seeking to provoke debate and (more importantly) thought amongst his audience. I have little doubt that, even if the whole of PH were to decry him as the worst sinner in the world, he'd continue to break speed limits where appropriate without remorse.

As to the original question, I'd suggest that speed limits are there to guide idiots. By that I mean (as Reg also mentioned in his linked posts) that if everyone drove with correct assessment of the conditions they wouldn't be needed.

In the extreme, the same applies to all rules of the road - even with drink driving, the very experienced driver who's got a high tolerance for alcohol, is aware that those 3 pints have impaired him, and adapts his driving to compensate is going to be safer than many of the unthinking "it says 40 so I'm doing 40 even though it's raining hard and my mind's on the trouble at work" drivers he might meet.

I don't claim to be a driving God because such arrogance would be unbefitting a deity but, so far in 30 years, my judgement of conditions has turned out to be sound. There have been near misses, which I hope I've learnt from, but none of them have been so wrong that they led to an accident. That doesn't mean I won't get it very wrong on the way to work tomorrow but it does suggest I'm less likely to than the person with 5 "couldn't see that coming" accidents in the past 3 years. Most of the people I know with that sort of record are very safe, law abiding, drivers and most of their accidents have been well within the speed limit.

That's the problem with speed limits - they're a compromise between having a man with a red flag walking in front of you and requiring all those law-abiding-but-frankly-crap drivers to actually think about the conditions - which is something they'll never really get the hang of.

If your awareness is proven (which I don't think is in any doubt with Reg), you choose to be flexible with them because it's the sensible thing to do, and you're willing to shoulder responsibility if you're wrong or get caught, then I honestly can't see how anyone but a sheeple could see that as a problem.

[Red Devil]

Blakewater said:

Red Devil said:

Red ringed 70mph signs are very rare in E&W. They are only to be found on non-motorway special roads (see here for the reason why). One well known example is the A55 Colwyn Bay Bypass which has similar restrictions to a motorway for certain classes of traffic. A similar example in Scotland is the A720 Edinburgh City Bypass.

I have seen a number of 60mph signs in Scotland on two lane roads. In particular on the A9. I don't recall any in E&W though, so I'm intrigued by your mention of the A683. The section into Heysham is not a d/c nor AFAIK a special road, so I would be interested to know under what regulation, if any, the LA has erected them.

Here's one I can show you on Google Streetview. The A558 Daresbury Expressway. It's 60mph all the way and most of it is dual carriageway with two lanes each way. I imagine it probably has been NSL in the past and then reduced, but I don't recall it. The 60mph signs on the single carriageway bit are probably just for the sake of consistency and ensuring people don't miss 60mph signs on the dual carriageway bits and assume they can do 70mph there.

https://www.google.com/maps/@53.344825,-2.635312,3...

Thanks for that. As there is a system of street lighting it has to be signed throughout (whether d/c or otherwise) as without any the default would be 30. The normal method would be a NSL sign, the same as one can see not very far away on the A56 which is d/c.

To me, the reason for signing the A558 differently is devoid of logic, although given the appalling ignorance that some drivers display about knowing what limit the NSL sign represents, I guess it shouldn't come as a surprise.

[Jon1967x]

Variomatic said:

In the extreme, the same applies to all rules of the road - even with drink driving, the very experienced driver who's got a high tolerance for alcohol, is aware that those 3 pints have impaired him, and adapts his driving to compensate is going to be safer than many of the unthinking "it says 40 so I'm doing 40 even though it's raining hard and my mind's on the trouble at work" drivers he might meet.
.

I hope you're not suggesting that drink driving for good drivers is therefore acceptable however high a tolerance to alcohol or experienced they are?! I'd agree that some sober drivers appear as bad as drunk ones but that no justification for either

[SK425]

Jon1967x said:

Variomatic said:

In the extreme, the same applies to all rules of the road - even with drink driving, the very experienced driver who's got a high tolerance for alcohol, is aware that those 3 pints have impaired him, and adapts his driving to compensate is going to be safer than many of the unthinking "it says 40 so I'm doing 40 even though it's raining hard and my mind's on the trouble at work" drivers he might meet.
.

I hope you're not suggesting that drink driving for good drivers is therefore acceptable however high a tolerance to alcohol or experienced they are?! I'd agree that some sober drivers appear as bad as drunk ones but that no justification for either

I took it that he was just talking about the concept of awareness and managing impairment rather than particularly advocating anything.

I wouldn't describe my alcohol tolerance as high. I'd describe it as variable. Sometimes 3 pints seems to have less of an effect than one. Other times it has rather more of an effect. I've given up worrying about why that might be or trying to tell in advance how it's going to go. But while I would expect 3 pints to take me comfortably over the drink drive limit, I am sure there have been occasions where 3 pints would have been less of an impairment to manage than, for example, the head full of man flu I've been driving to work with this week.

[Zeeky]

Variomatic said:

...

Having only recently discovered Reg's posts on here, my reading of the original post wasn't that he was "seeking approval" but rather that, like all his other posts, he was seeking to provoke debate and (more importantly) thought amongst his audience.

I am discounting the link between advanced driving and breaking the rules. Advanced driving doesn't make the breaking of rules any more or less likely. If an advanced driver chooses to break the rules then we would expect him or her to do so subject to the rules of advanced driving. That is not the same as the rules of advanced driving justifying the breaking of rules.

[Variomatic]

Jon1967x said:

I hope you're not suggesting that drink driving for good drivers is therefore acceptable however high a tolerance to alcohol or experienced they are?! I'd agree that some sober drivers appear as bad as drunk ones but that no justification for either

Absolutely not.

If we had a licencing and enforceent system that could ensure that only "good" (by some objective and suitably high standard) drivers were on the road then maybe. because then we wouldn't be relying on the driver's own determination of whether or not they were capable. Most drivers who qualified then would probably choose not to drive after drinking in any case, making the law on tha matter redundant.

I have no idea whether I'd be able to retain my licence under such a system but I'd hope I'd be further down the line to lose it than many. Such a system would remove an awful lot of people and traffic from the roads, probably killing the car industry at the same time so it's never going to happen

[Jon1967x]

Variomatic said:

Jon1967x said:

I hope you're not suggesting that drink driving for good drivers is therefore acceptable however high a tolerance to alcohol or experienced they are?! I'd agree that some sober drivers appear as bad as drunk ones but that no justification for either

Absolutely not.

If we had a licencing and enforceent system that could ensure that only "good" (by some objective and suitably high standard) drivers were on the road then maybe. because then we wouldn't be relying on the driver's own determination of whether or not they were capable. Most drivers who qualified then would probably choose not to drive after drinking in any case, making the law on tha matter redundant.

I have no idea whether I'd be able to retain my licence under such a system but I'd hope I'd be further down the line to lose it than many. Such a system would remove an awful lot of people and traffic from the roads, probably killing the car industry at the same time so it's never going to happen

Phewww apologies for questioning your integrity/sanity

[Variomatic]

Jon1967x said:

Phewww apologies for questioning your integrity/sanity

No problem, although you might want to retract that apology when I become Minister for Transport. My plan is simple:

Rescind all driving laws except the need for a licence and insurance. The licence won't require a test to obtain because it's only there to keep tab on things.

First "fault" accident (inc parking scrapes)= 3 month ban.
Second fault accident = 12 month ban
Third fault accident = lifetime ban
First fault accident involving serious injury to anyone = lifetime ban

Two "non fault" accidents will count as a fault one for any of the above because you seem to be making a habit of it.

Driving without licence = 2 years imprisonment
Driving while banned = imprisonment for remainder of ban (up to life) and ban restarts from date of release.

When I introduce this I'd strongly suggest that people consider staying off the streets for 6 months or so. By that time most of the idiots should either be banned, in prison, or wrapped round a tree somewhere and the roads will be safe and uncluttered

[Blakewater]

When LJK Setright wrote about how speed saves lives because it saves time, he said he would have just one rule of dangerous use covering all driving, including parking. It would be up to anyone accused of dangerous use to simply prove he, or she, wasn't endangering anyone.

[vonhosen]

Blakewater said:

When LJK Setright wrote about how speed saves lives because it saves time, he said he would have just one rule of dangerous use covering all driving, including parking. It would be up to anyone accused of dangerous use to simply prove he, or she, wasn't endangering anyone.

Luckily his views hold about as much sway as other journalists like Clarkson. Our road use (or lives come to that) should have far more consideration than just whether something is dangerous or not.

[Blakewater]

vonhosen said:

Blakewater said:

When LJK Setright wrote about how speed saves lives because it saves time, he said he would have just one rule of dangerous use covering all driving, including parking. It would be up to anyone accused of dangerous use to simply prove he, or she, wasn't endangering anyone.

Luckily his views hold about as much sway as other journalists like Clarkson. Our road use (or lives come to that) should have far more consideration than just whether something is dangerous or not.

I'm not saying it's a viable idea, only that Variomatic isn't the first person to come up with it. You've said yourself when discussing the contact position that what's an acceptable risk is subjective and different people will have different ideas about it. We have rules to draw a line between what's acceptable and what isn't for the purpose of guidance and prosecution. A speed limit is supposed to be the fastest a person can safely go and, in many circumstances, reaching it can be an unacceptable risk to most people.

The problem with camera enforcement is it works on a binary principle of right and wrong. Below a speed is safe and above a speed is dangerous. There has been talk of introducing cameras to detect tailgating which would mean your brief use of the contact position could result in a fine landing on your doormat, even though you've judged your use of that manoeuvre to be safe. Meanwhile, someone doing 70mph on an NSL dual carriageway in heavy rain, ice or thick fog would get away with it.

The offences of Careless Driving, Dangerous Driving and Driving Without Due Care and Attention include specific acts of poor driving, but whether someone has committed those offences is quite subjective, so they're not far from what Variomatic and LJK Setright have been talking about.

The difference with speed limits now though is that what's taken into consideration isn't just accident rates. It's what the locals feel is an acceptable risk, what sort of speed alarms them as traffic goes by, what they feel creates too much of a noise nuisance and what harms the environment. Unfortunately, that conflicts with people's desire and need to get from one place to another quickly and to enjoy driving fast. People often want everybody else to be slowed down past their houses whilst being allowed to go as quickly as possible themselves for their own convenience.

[vonhosen]

Blakewater said:

vonhosen said:

Blakewater said:

When LJK Setright wrote about how speed saves lives because it saves time, he said he would have just one rule of dangerous use covering all driving, including parking. It would be up to anyone accused of dangerous use to simply prove he, or she, wasn't endangering anyone.

Luckily his views hold about as much sway as other journalists like Clarkson. Our road use (or lives come to that) should have far more consideration than just whether something is dangerous or not.

I'm not saying it's a viable idea, only that Variomatic isn't the first person to come up with it. You've said yourself when discussing the contact position that what's an acceptable risk is subjective and different people will have different ideas about it. We have rules to draw a line between what's acceptable and what isn't for the purpose of guidance and prosecution. A speed limit is supposed to be the fastest a person can safely go and, in many circumstances, reaching it can be an unacceptable risk to most people.

The problem with camera enforcement is it works on a binary principle of right and wrong. Below a speed is safe and above a speed is dangerous. There has been talk of introducing cameras to detect tailgating which would mean your brief use of the contact position could result in a fine landing on your doormat, even though you've judged your use of that manoeuvre to be safe. Meanwhile, someone doing 70mph on an NSL dual carriageway in heavy rain, ice or thick fog would get away with it.

The offences of Careless Driving, Dangerous Driving and Driving Without Due Care and Attention include specific acts of poor driving, but whether someone has committed those offences is quite subjective, so they're not far from what Variomatic and LJK Setright have been talking about.

The difference with speed limits now though is that what's taken into consideration isn't just accident rates. It's what the locals feel is an acceptable risk, what sort of speed alarms them as traffic goes by, what they feel creates too much of a noise nuisance and what harms the environment. Unfortunately, that conflicts with people's desire and need to get from one place to another quickly and to enjoy driving fast. People often want everybody else to be slowed down past their houses whilst being allowed to go as quickly as possible themselves for their own convenience.

No the camera doesn't work on a binary below the speed limit is safe & above is dangerous. It works on a binary was the speed at/below the limit or above. A prosecution for exceeding the limit is not a prosecution on the basis of danger, it's a prosecution for crossing a clearly defined threshold. Even then you aren't picked up on small percentage points over it.

Of course in setting limits we have to have a compromise between some people's wishes to get somewhere quickly & not only the risk they create for others in passing through, but also the annoyance/disruption etc they cause in their lives. It's all a compromise.

[Blakewater]

Safe, practical and acceptable is what I meant. Poor choice of phrase. Though when speed limits reductions are campaigned for, it's often on the basis of safety, even if accident rates and overall causes of accidents on the road imply that the current limit isn't unsafe. Someone else around here said that the people in his village had campaigned a few years ago for a limit on a local road, that they believed was dangerously high, to be reduced. They were told it wasn't possible because there hadn't been a significant number of accidents to imply the limit was too high. That argument always led to people asking, "Why should we wait for someone to be killed before something is done?" because they assumed that would happen if the limit wasn't lowered.

With the rule changes, limits can be lowered in that situation.

[vonhosen]

Blakewater said:

Safe, practical and acceptable is what I meant. Poor choice of phrase. Though when speed limits reductions are campaigned for, it's often on the basis of safety, even if accident rates and overall causes of accidents on the road imply that the current limit isn't unsafe. Someone else around here said that the people in his village had campaigned a few years ago for a limit on a local road, that they believed was dangerously high, to be reduced. They were told it wasn't possible because there hadn't been a significant number of accidents to imply the limit was too high. That argument always led to people asking, "Why should we wait for someone to be killed before something is done?" because they assumed that would happen if the limit wasn't lowered.

With the rule changes, limits can be lowered in that situation.

Of course if you want to lower a limit on the basis that too many people are being killed doing those speeds & lower speeds would mean fewer deaths, then you need an argument/solution that supports that, however if you want a lower limit for other reasons then you should only have to show there is an argument/solution that supports a change for that reasoned compromise.

The speed limit is by definition the 'acceptable' maximum speed.

[7mike]

Motivated by a desire to hang on to my licences I stick to the "acceptable" maximum speed limit on this road. Anyone care to guess what the speed limit is for this road?

[Dr Jekyll]

vonhosen said:

The speed limit is by definition the 'acceptable' maximum speed.

If by acceptable you mean legally acceptable, I don't see your point.

If by acceptable you mean capable of being accepted, then this simply isn't the case. There are many roads where it is physically impossible to reach he speed limit, there are others where many people 'accept' speeds of greater than the limit by driving at them.