Breaking the National Speed Limit

[SVS]

It's those pesky deer jumping out that worry me You never know when one's going to go Boo!

[SK425]

otolith said:

Is there a difference in the credibility of "It is not safe to exceed X on this particular road" and "It is never safe to exceed Y on any road"?

If we're talking about speed limits, it's the difference between "It is not legal to exceed X on this particular road" and "It is not legal to exceed Y on any road". It's not meaningful to discuss the credibility of those - they are simple statements of fact.

[otolith]

What if, practicalities of enforcement aside, one really doesn't give a st about obeying the law in this instance?

[Johnnytheboy]

Hooli said:

Johnnytheboy said:

foxtrotmike said:

What is the general opinion in Advanced driving circles about breaking the national speed limit.

An observer has explained to me that they would exceed the limits, and seemed to frown upon my decision to stick to the limits as slow driving.

As for posted limits 20 30 40 50 mph etc they said this shouldn't be broken

I don't understand the concrete distinction that some people make between different levels of limit.

Either you believe in adherence in speed limits for their own sake (for whatever reason) or you don't.

Red rings mean there is probably a hazard or reason to be slower than the NSL (unless it's recent when it's almost always bks). NSL should still mean No Speed Limit & gets treated as such.

Why is that illogical?

Because of what you just said in brackets.

Use of lower-than-NSL limits has been so abused that, in my case at least, they command a lot less respect than they used to.

[Blakewater]

otolith said:

What if, practicalities of enforcement aside, one really doesn't give a st about obeying the law in this instance?

I have more confidence in people who can think for themselves and make sound judgments for themselves than people who just blindly follow the rules because they're there without really thinking what the actual dangers are. Of course, I don't support people who drive around town like nuts doing full bore starts from the lights and street racing but it's no good sticking to the speed limit if you still can't see the dangers.

The problem is, political leaders, whether it's at national government level or local councillors, want quick results and pretty basic actions to appease the people who are making the most fuss. Talk to the people who protest over speed about the principles of advanced driving, which everyone ought to routinely apply, and they won't really understand what you're on about. If a councillor can show them a speed limit sign or some speed humps and built out kerbs they can show them they've achieved something now. Changing attitudes to driving and improving driver training is a less tangible and more long term process.

[SK425]

otolith said:

What if, practicalities of enforcement aside, one really doesn't give a st about obeying the law in this instance?

Then one would presumably exceed whichever limits one fancied, subject to how much one feared the likelihood and consequences of getting caught. I'm not sure how that relates to your credibility question. I was imagining the statements being in the mind of the person setting the limits - did you mean they were in the mind of the driver considering exceeding the limits?

[otolith]

It's a bit more subtle than that - if one does not believe in obeying laws because they are the law, but because they seem to be good laws, it would be easy to say "I generally think laws relating to red rings are good and sensible, and will obey them, but I think one rather low limit for all other circumstances is a bad law, and I will ignore it".

[SK425]

Is there any rational basis for that view though?

[otolith]

For thinking a locally set speed limit is more likely to be a good law than that no single carriageway road in the country is good for more than 60mph? Yes, I think so.

[SK425]

We're not talking "is more likely to be". We're talking "unquestionably always will be".

[terry tibbs]

does the national speed limit still exist

not around here anymore its all 50, extended 40/30 way beyond the built limits

[Thirsty33]

Any observer is just a human like the rest of us. So not every opinion will be correct. For all advanced (non police) testing, you adhere to the limit, no question. At other times - up to you and don't take anyone's view on it than your own. Your licence, your money, your decision alone. We all know it can be safe to exceed the stated limit if for no other reason than from driving safely along a road for years up to the limit only for the limit to be dropped 20mph. No hazards changed, just the limit. But that logic never makes it legal, and no magistrate is going to take your "advanced driving status" as reason why you should be let off, probably the contrary - you should know better. (And for the pendants, no, the NSL has never been above 60 on a single carriageway road - I was making a more general point!)

In extremis you might see a situation where it's safer to break a limit than stick to it (if you think this often you are doing something wrong!). But it's still breaking the law.

Many years ago I was on a motorway, dark, lane 3 alongside another car, bang on 70mph. Car behind was not showing any lights (other than dipped head) but then blue lights came on. Knowing I was doing nothing wrong, I accelerated briefly to pass the vehicle and let him on his way. But the police don't even recommend that - and if you have to cross a red light to let an emergency vehicle through, you should not and I should not have done what I did. If he'd been pulling me for an unknown defective tail light, I'd have felt like a real charley to get a speeding ticket to go with it. (I didn't, he got on his way, probably grateful for my pragmatic approach)

[Dr Jekyll]

Thirsty33 said:

(And for the pendants, no, the NSL has never been above 60 on a single carriageway road - I was making a more general point!)

Yes it has.

[Blakewater]

Dr Jekyll said:

Thirsty33 said:

(And for the pendants, no, the NSL has never been above 60 on a single carriageway road - I was making a more general point!)

Yes it has.

The NSL in the UK started out as a blanket 70mph across all previously unrestricted roads.

[MC Bodge]

I discovered yet more formerly NSL traditional A-roads that have now become 50 and 40 mph zones.

For the attentive driver, these changes are an absolute p*ss-take.

For the inattentive driver, well, they probably won't have known what the limit was before or after....

The new 20mph zone entering an urban area was being shown the respect it deserved, nobody was adhering to it.

[theshrew]

MC Bodge said:

I discovered yet more formerly NSL traditional A-roads that have now become 50 and 40 mph zones.

For the attentive driver, these changes are an absolute p*ss-take.

For the inattentive driver, well, they probably won't have known what the limit was before or after....

The new 20mph zone entering an urban area was being shown the respect it deserved, nobody was adhering to it.

We dont have any 20 mph zones around here but over the last year ive noticed the same as you.

I dont mind 30 and 40 zones to much tbh as they are normally in built up areas. Its the new reduced to 50 mph that as you say take the p1ss.

1 i can think of near me is a perfectly fine to drive / ride at 60. At one point it does have a cross roads you needed to be aware of, It did cause some accidents with people pulling out tbh. Last summer they put in some traffic lights which has now stopped the crashes - That worked well.

Move onto about a month ago they have now lowered the limit to 50 - FFS the problem has already been solved.

[MC Bodge]

"It's 50/40/30/20 for a reason"

[Blakewater]

Some local councillors in Whalley are at it with the A671 because there have been accidents with people running the red lights. People who are racing the lights or daydreaming won't be deterred by a lower limit and people turning need to make sure the traffic approaching them has stopped before they set off. They just enjoy a good crusade and this is something to slot in between protesting against house building and the magazines sold in the news agents.

[SVS]

There's a problem with ever reducing speed limits: where they are inappropriately low, some drivers will start to lose respect for obeying the speed limit.

Limits need to be appropriate. That means they should be set neither too high nor too low, in order for drivers to respect them. Otherwise there's a risk that ever lower speed limits backfire, with many drivers starting to ignore them.

[Red Devil]

Quite, but the more artificially low limits, which people then have little respect for, that can be brought in the greater the revenue that can be generated on behalf of those running SACs and/or the Treasury. Where there is a potential revenue stream to be exploited other considerations become secondary. Anybody with half a brain knows that the majority of RTCs are caused by a lack of attention and/or skills. Followed closely by not driving to the conditions. The excessive focus on specific numbers on a stick, especially when this is done at the behest of those with ulterior motives, is ultimately counter-productive.