Breaking the National Speed Limit
Discussion
CarbonXKR said:
I got caught during a safe overtake of a lorry and two other cars that were reluctant to do so on a straight downhill stretch by a mobile camera van in a layby. I got the NIP in the post at 77mph and I know they flashed me on my overtake as my "Road Angel" flashed up "Mobile" during said manoeuvre. I wrote to appropriate dept. saying I felt it was unfair as it was a safe overtake and how silly it would have been to stick to 60 etc. The response I had back was that they could prosecute at 1 mph over the limit if they chose. So how much can you break it by??? None if the laser officers are about 
I'm not sure what you consider your justification/defence is here but you seem to suggest it relates to the speed of the lorry.On a single carriageway it would be travelling legally, at best, 50mph but you mention "60". If it was doing 60mph a small lorry would get a ticket too.
60mph only applies to smaller goods vehicles on a dual carriageway so, if 60mph is your defence and the two cars behind the lorry don't want to use lane two and overtake, why the hurry to exceed the 70 mph limit? Certain dual carriageways have local limitations that have BIG SIGNS but you would have seen these if they were there, surely?
So, best scenario: Small lorry is at maximum permitted speed - 50mph. You attempt a three vehicle overtake but totally misjudge the speed and distance you require to achieve this. Next worst, large lorry is at max permitted 40mph and you make an even worse judgement of speed and distance.
Your sense of unfairness is misplaced and if you have any spare cash and humility, left over after the inevitable hike in your insurance premium, you should invest in some driver training. Your "safe" overtake, never was.
When you were clocked at 77mph, your speedo would have indicated far near 85. You could have predicted/seen this if you were not petrified during the actual manoeuvre and had instead planned your progress.
77mph is the polite way of saying "we could have done you for far more"!
Byteme said:
60mph only applies to smaller goods vehicles on a dual carriageway so, if 60mph is your defence and the two cars behind the lorry don't want to use lane two and overtake, why the hurry to exceed the 70 mph limit? Certain dual carriageways
From your next paragraph you have deduced the situation correctly, so I'm puzzled by your mention of dual carriageways and 70mph speed limit, thinking out loud?Byteme said:
So, best scenario: Small lorry is at maximum permitted speed - 50mph. You attempt a three vehicle overtake but totally misjudge the speed and distance you require to achieve this. Next worst, large lorry is at max permitted 40mph and you make an even worse judgement of speed and distance.
Worse judgement? Possibly, but what happened to "minimizing risk" == "minimizing time you are in the opposite lane"?Byteme said:
When you were clocked at 77mph, your speedo would have indicated far near 85. You could have predicted/seen this if you were not petrified during the actual manoeuvre and had instead planned your progress.
Petrified? Why do you think another driver doing a safe overtake at 85 is "petrified"? Were you with them, or have they made another post somewhere saying they were petrified?I had the same thing, two lorries (doing 40), three cars behind happy to sit there at 40, 3 mile long straight with nothing coming the other way, minor roads off to left and right which I had good visibility along those minor roads with nothing on them, my failure was poor observation and failing to see the van in a layby miles up the road was a camera van that got me.
Pulled out, passed cars doing a bit more than they were, bearing mind they could decide to overtake, then sped up to indicated 80-ish (real 70) to get past lorries, pulled back in already slowing down and carry on at indicated 65~70.
Back into my lane with minimal time in the oncoming lane.
There seems to be a lot of inconsistency between IAM and ROSPA observers/instructors.
I break the national speed limit quite regularly and having driven 5 million or so miles with no accident resulting from excess speed I think I've done quite well. Though I have paid for it on and off over the years with three points here and there which is fair enough.
In fact I might about to be stumping up again as a result of a perfectly safe overtake on a very wide A5 yesterday when I may have touched 75 only to spot the white van on the bridge half a mile away looking down the straight. I was concentrating on what was going 2-300 metres ahead and behind and it wasn't there when I had passed that way 15 minutes earlier. I have a clean licence now for 5 years so I won't complain when should the letter come through.
Whatever happens, I will continue to drive as a feel appropriate.
I break the national speed limit quite regularly and having driven 5 million or so miles with no accident resulting from excess speed I think I've done quite well. Though I have paid for it on and off over the years with three points here and there which is fair enough.
In fact I might about to be stumping up again as a result of a perfectly safe overtake on a very wide A5 yesterday when I may have touched 75 only to spot the white van on the bridge half a mile away looking down the straight. I was concentrating on what was going 2-300 metres ahead and behind and it wasn't there when I had passed that way 15 minutes earlier. I have a clean licence now for 5 years so I won't complain when should the letter come through.
Whatever happens, I will continue to drive as a feel appropriate.
Byteme said:
Your sense of unfairness is misplaced and if you have any spare cash and humility, left over after the inevitable hike in your insurance premium, you should invest in some driver training. Your "safe" overtake, never was.
None of us knows whether the overtake was "safe" or not. We weren't there. Speed alone would not in itself deem the overtake to be unsafe. I agree that driver training will benefit anyone who undertakes it of their own volition.Byteme said:
When you were clocked at 77mph, your speedo would have indicated far near 85. You could have predicted/seen this if you were not petrified during the actual manoeuvre and had instead planned your progress.
Legally a speedo can register up to 10% over actual speed, but rarely does. The standard over-read at 77mph would be approx 3 or 4 mph, it's unlikely to be 8mph.Byteme said:
77mph is the polite way of saying "we could have done you for far more"!
No, its just stating the bl*****g obvious that at 1mph over the designated speed limit an absolute offence has been committed and the miscreant can legally be prosecuted. In reality the ACPO guidelines are usually applied and a de-minimus excess of 10% plus 2mph becomes the prosecution threshold.fwaggie said:
Byteme said:
60mph only applies to smaller goods vehicles on a dual carriageway so, if 60mph is your defence and the two cars behind the lorry don't want to use lane two and overtake, why the hurry to exceed the 70 mph limit? Certain dual carriageways
(1) From your next paragraph you have deduced the situation correctly, so I'm puzzled by your mention of dual carriageways and 70mph speed limit, thinking out loud?Byteme said:
So, best scenario: Small lorry is at maximum permitted speed - 50mph. You attempt a three vehicle overtake but totally misjudge the speed and distance you require to achieve this. Next worst, large lorry is at max permitted 40mph and you make an even worse judgement of speed and distance.
(2) Worse judgement? Possibly, but what happened to "minimizing risk" == "minimizing time you are in the opposite lane"?Byteme said:
When you were clocked at 77mph, your speedo would have indicated far near 85. You could have predicted/seen this if you were not petrified during the actual manoeuvre and had instead planned your progress.
(3) Petrified? Why do you think another driver doing a safe overtake at 85 is "petrified"? Were you with them, or have they made another post somewhere saying they were petrified?(4) my failure was poor observation and failing to see the van in a layby miles up the road was a camera van that got me.
Pulled out, passed cars doing a bit more than they were, bearing mind they could decide to overtake, then sped up to indicated 80-ish (real 70) to get past lorries, pulled back in already slowing down and carry on at indicated 65~70.
Back into my lane with minimal time in the oncoming lane.
Point 2: Calculating time and distance (potentially exposed to danger) when attempting a three vehicle overtake requires a good deal of experience, particularly when driving a vehicle lacking huge reserves of acceleration and braking to correct poor decisions and unexpected situations. IF the road ahead was clear (of any and all hazards) the time spent on the opposite side of the road at moderate speed was probably less of a risk than approaching the two vehicles behind the lorry at a higher speed even using the horn to warn of your approach.
Point 3: I've seen it too many times before. Poor judgement at the outset of a manoeuvre generally doesn't improve at any point beyond. The initial decisions should have included "can I overtake safely while adhering to the NSL?" If this was the case there wouldn't have been a problem and contingencies would have been made and adapted. An overtaking speed so far in excess of the limit suggests that the original judgement was flawed, or more likely, never even considered. In this instance the driver admits to an audible warning of a camera location but failed to respond to it so his thought processes were almost certainly focused on getting past the lorry and nothing else. This sounds like panic to me. Fortunately the only problem he encountered was the camera he was warned may be there (but ignored) and not some other hazard that could have presented itself instantly.
Point4: Observation is key so if you missed seeing the van, that only operates at limited range, what else? A "3 mile long straight" in other parts of the world or on our motorways is very different to most of our rural roads where there are almost always numerous junctions and entrances from farms and private residences. Straight roads provide a limited field of view beyond a vehicle in front of you and in the case of a high sided lorry that amounts to almost nothing. Slight curves give forward view inside, outside and through successive vehicles.
The same restriction on visibility that restricts your view on the seemingly "safe" straight is the same limitation that prevents emerging hazards ahead from seeing you.
Just some ideas to consider.
fwaggie said:
Worse judgement? Possibly, but what happened to "minimizing risk" == "minimizing time you are in the opposite lane"?
Certainly not always. Possibly not even often. You minimize time spent in the offside lane by achieving a high speed differential, but with a high speed differential you are committed to an overtake much earlier, with nowhere to go if someone pulls out in front of you or in some cases brakes. In a multi-vehicle overtake you reduce the chances of being able to drop into a gap between vehicles, and there may be more likelihood of one of the vehicles pulling out in front of you. And, as in this case, you reduce the amount of time you have to observe and plan for hazards further up the road (in this case the scamera van). If an overtake requires a speed well over the limit to be safe, then whatever his/her attitude to the limit a driver on top of the situation is going to be looking for the possibility of enforcement. With a three mile straight (really?), it would surely be better to go for a lower speed differential.Within the IAM and Rospa car world, because these are road safety organisations they have to preach obeying the speed limit. The only advice for obtaining a good result on test has to be not to plan an overtake unless you expect to be able to complete it safely within the limit. Which is a pity, because it makes it very difficult to teach or practice overtaking.
Dr Jekyll said:
robbyd said:
But what do you do when a perfectly good NSL gets reduced to a 40mph?
Do you question it, or follow blindly as a sheep?
I follow it because I know perfectly well that a camera partnership and half the local police force are hiding in the bushes in the hope of pulling me for speeding. Why do you think they lower such speed limits in the first place?Do you question it, or follow blindly as a sheep?
I often use a SCW 'A' road that crosses from West Sussex to Surrey. As soon as it crosses the border to Surrey the road becomes a 50mph limit, then 40mph a little way further on; while the road doesn't change in character at all. In seven years I've never seen a patrol on this route at all, mainly because most of the traffic doesn't 'speed' but also because there are limited places a Camera van can safely park with a good line of sight.
They do like to sit in the bus-stop at the bottom of a steep hill in a village 30mph limit though.
SS7
I've never understood the logic with respect to the placement of mobile enforcement. They usually seem to be placed where they can target the odd single vehicle that inevitably comes along posing no risk whatsoever.
For example a few miles from my home a mobile camera van often parks up beside a wide 90 degree corner at about ten in the morning. This is a hamlet where, at this time of day, five minutes could pass without a single vehicle passing in either direction. The van is only ever positioned to catch traffic on the outside of the curve, where the effects of speeding are probably less of a hazard than those speeding around the inner part. Clearly they choose this position because their presence is less obvious. They'll catch the odd motorist no doubt but despite passing through the hamlet for several years I have yet to see a single pedestrian or cyclist and have never seen skid marks on the road surface or any other indication an accident or near miss has ever occurred.
Contrast this with another single carriageway A road I travel on that is too wide and encourages simultaneous overtaking in each direction. I choose not to use it at certain times of the day because of the number of accidents that happen. During the early morning and evening, as people travel to and from work, the usual suspects overtake traffic in both directions simultaneously. This is traffic that is already moving at 60mph and I wold estimate that in many cases their speed is 20mph, or more above. I have never seen a camera van during these time periods where they could detect numerous serious offences.
The only explanation I can think of for this is that the camera technology is very basic and only capable of going after easy targets. This would explain the tactic analogous to using armed officers to watch for 6 year kiddies nicking sweets in the corner shop while ignoring the armed robbers knocking over Barclays next door.
For example a few miles from my home a mobile camera van often parks up beside a wide 90 degree corner at about ten in the morning. This is a hamlet where, at this time of day, five minutes could pass without a single vehicle passing in either direction. The van is only ever positioned to catch traffic on the outside of the curve, where the effects of speeding are probably less of a hazard than those speeding around the inner part. Clearly they choose this position because their presence is less obvious. They'll catch the odd motorist no doubt but despite passing through the hamlet for several years I have yet to see a single pedestrian or cyclist and have never seen skid marks on the road surface or any other indication an accident or near miss has ever occurred.
Contrast this with another single carriageway A road I travel on that is too wide and encourages simultaneous overtaking in each direction. I choose not to use it at certain times of the day because of the number of accidents that happen. During the early morning and evening, as people travel to and from work, the usual suspects overtake traffic in both directions simultaneously. This is traffic that is already moving at 60mph and I wold estimate that in many cases their speed is 20mph, or more above. I have never seen a camera van during these time periods where they could detect numerous serious offences.
The only explanation I can think of for this is that the camera technology is very basic and only capable of going after easy targets. This would explain the tactic analogous to using armed officers to watch for 6 year kiddies nicking sweets in the corner shop while ignoring the armed robbers knocking over Barclays next door.
Gassing Station | Advanced Driving | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff