Exceed the speed limit? Ever?

[vonhosen]

Pan Pan Pan said:

brman said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

I am neither, I just try to drive to the best speed that road conditions, and or the posted limits allow as much as possible. To do any less is just perverse and anti social.

rubbish. The only thing anti-social here is you trying to foist your own need to go as fast as possible on every other road user

Drivers not giving enough space for overtakers to slot into or driving in the middle or outside lane when not necessary are anti social. Someone driving 10 mph below the limit just because he wants to take it easy isn't. You need to get a sense of perspective about what "society" is all about

You need to understand why motor vehicles, and roads are built. and why posted limits are set on those roads. The sheer selfish arrogance of someone who decides they want to dawdle and hold up as many other drivers ( Some who may have long distances to cover) who legally wish to travel at the posted limit is quite staggering.
Society is not based on the selfish arrogance of a fortunately small minority who see no problem in baulking the progress of those around them, just because `they' don't feel like travelling at the already low set but legal posted limits, but rather on the needs of the majority who do have somewhere they need to be at a specific time.

What would be perverse would be travelling slower than the limit with the sole intent of holding others up. Choosing a speed lower than others wish to travel at but leaving them opportunities to pass isn't in the same ball park.

[OverSteery]

I am an observer for the IAM, but clearly am speaking for myself.
As a charity and road safety organisation they cannot be seen or state they condone legal actions ie speeding.
I have never heard anybody say that speeding is always dangerous.

To speed in an IAM test is likely to result in a fail; during an overtake its far more important to watch the road, rather than the speedo, so minor extra mph isn't likely to be an issue. Consistent speeding or evidence of inability to maintain a safe legal speed is.

In practice, progress is made where safe....

Edited by OverSteery on Friday 8th April 09:05

[Pan Pan Pan]

vonhosen said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

WD39 said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

The whole point of using any motorized vehicle is to move from one point on the Earths surface to another, faster than is possible by other means. Set against this reason for using motorized vehicles, are limits imposed by vehicle type, road / weather conditions, and of course speed limits, required to bring an element of safety for the majority into the activity.
The speed limits are low set to give the widest spectrum of vehicle (and vehicle operator) types a reasonable expectation of safety when moving from one place to another.
To travel at speeds below the already low set posted limits, when driver ability, vehicle type and weather conditions allow the posted limit to be safely maintained is perverse, and is in opposition to the whole point of using a motorized vehicle.

Oh dear, I am perverse. Is that good?

If everyone on the road around you wants to (legally) travel at the posted limit, whereas you decide No, I am going to dawdle, and hold up as many other drivers (some who may have hundreds of miles to cover) as much as I can, because `I' don't want to travel at the legal posted limit. Then yes, you are definitely perverse, anti social, and plain bloody minded.

Your premise for motorised vehicles isn't universally true. i don't always drive/ride because it is the fastest means to move from point A to point B. I don't always even take the fastest route when travelling by a means that isn't the fastest means.
If another driver is leaving you opportunities to pass on a reasonably regular basis that isn't perverse, anti social or bloody minded, even if they have decided to travel at a speed below the posted limited where you consider it safe to legally go faster.

WD39 has explained he/she leaves a large enough gap in front for others to pass if they wish so is show consideration for others who wish to travel faster.

No, consideration in the first place, is trying to travel at the legal posted limit wherever that is possible. Baulking someone, and then trying to justify baulking someone, by saying a gap will be left for someone who wishes to overtake/ travel at the legal posted limit is a*se about face.
It requires them to carry out the (potentially dangerous) maneuver of overtaking, which they would not even have had to, had the driver in front been travelling at the legal posted limit. Someone overtaking another driver who is already travelling at the posted limit? Yes that would be illegal, and antisocial.

[OverSteery]

Pan Pan Pan said:

The whole point of using any motorized vehicle is to move from one point on the Earths surface to another, faster than is possible by other means. Set against this reason for using motorized vehicles, are limits imposed by vehicle type, road / weather conditions, and of course speed limits, required to bring an element of safety for the majority into the activity.
The speed limits are low set to give the widest spectrum of vehicle (and vehicle operator) types a reasonable expectation of safety when moving from one place to another.
To travel at speeds below the already low set posted limits, when driver ability, vehicle type and weather conditions allow the posted limit to be safely maintained is perverse, and is in opposition to the whole point of using a motorized vehicle.

Speed limits are LIMITS and not targets. there are miles of twisty roads that are national speed limits where 60 would be unsafe if indeed possible.

[vonhosen]

Pan Pan Pan said:

No, consideration in the first place, is trying to travel at the legal posted limit wherever that is possible. Baulking someone, and then trying to justify baulking someone, by saying a gap will be left for someone who wishes to overtake/ travel at the legal posted limit is a*se about face.
It requires them to carry out the (potentially dangerous) maneuver of overtaking, which they would not even have had to, had the driver in front been travelling at the legal posted limit. Someone overtaking another driver who is already travelling at the posted limit? Yes that would be illegal, and antisocial.

If it was as you suggest we'd have far more minimum speed limits than we do.
There is no suggestion of baulking & then trying to justify.
There is no offence committed where a driver who decides to travel below the speed limit shows consideration by leaving others opportunity to pass.
You are just trying to foist your personal views as societal views.
You started off with an erroneous statement about motorised vehicles being about the fastest means from A to B & have gone on from there.
It isn't the sole or even primary mover you suggest, but in fact only one of many considerations. Cost is probably more of a primary mover than speed for many. Cost is a reason that people may legitimately choose to temper their speed.
Tomorrow I am travelling 100 miles. I am doing it in the car & will mostly use motorways & dual carriageways.
Next month I am doing a couple of thousand miles journey, I am purposely avoiding motorways & dual carriageways as much as possible.
If speed were the primary mover I'd be flying (& flying would have been cheaper too as it happens). Fastest or cheapest means from A to B in no way figures in the choices involved in that journey.

[Pan Pan Pan]

OverSteery said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

The whole point of using any motorized vehicle is to move from one point on the Earths surface to another, faster than is possible by other means. Set against this reason for using motorized vehicles, are limits imposed by vehicle type, road / weather conditions, and of course speed limits, required to bring an element of safety for the majority into the activity.
The speed limits are low set to give the widest spectrum of vehicle (and vehicle operator) types a reasonable expectation of safety when moving from one place to another.
To travel at speeds below the already low set posted limits, when driver ability, vehicle type and weather conditions allow the posted limit to be safely maintained is perverse, and is in opposition to the whole point of using a motorized vehicle.

Speed limits are LIMITS and not targets. there are miles of twisty roads that are national speed limits where 60 would be unsafe if indeed possible.

You seem to have missed the bit where I stated where `road conditions' and posted speed limits allow.
If I am behind a HGV or a bus on a twisty road, I expect that those vehicles are going to be slow by their very nature, their length will also have a bearing on whether or not a safe overtake is possible. But where a car is deliberately being driven in a dawdling fashion, with no recognition made of the queue of other drivers (who wish to legally travel at the posted limit) built up behind them, then the driver of the dawdling vehicle is guilty of driving in a selfish, arrogant, and anti social manner and driving without due care and attention.
They may be bumbling down to the local shops, but other drivers may have hundreds of miles to cover to reach their destination at a specific time, so to deliberately travel at speeds less than the posted limit when conditions allow, with vehicles backed up behind them, is just sheer blind selfish arrogance.
Doing up to 520000 miles a year, I have often been in a line of traffic behind such arrogant bumbling dawdlers, where overtaking becomes impossible, because the vehicles directly behind the dawdler do not overtake even when a safe opportunity presents itself. This making an overtake for cars further back, even less possible/more dangerous.
Worse still, I have been in such a queue, when an ambulance with blues and twos and sirens has been held up at the back of such a queue. with the myopic bumbling dawdler so far at the head of the queue `they' have formed, they have not even registered its existence, and speeded up / pulled over to let it go by. If people cannot drive safely at the low set posted limits, they need to consider whether they are suited / safe to operate a motor vehicle on public roads at all.

Edited by Pan Pan Pan on Friday 8th April 10:46

[Pan Pan Pan]

vonhosen said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

No, consideration in the first place, is trying to travel at the legal posted limit wherever that is possible. Baulking someone, and then trying to justify baulking someone, by saying a gap will be left for someone who wishes to overtake/ travel at the legal posted limit is a*se about face.
It requires them to carry out the (potentially dangerous) maneuver of overtaking, which they would not even have had to, had the driver in front been travelling at the legal posted limit. Someone overtaking another driver who is already travelling at the posted limit? Yes that would be illegal, and antisocial.

If it was as you suggest we'd have far more minimum speed limits than we do.
There is no suggestion of baulking & then trying to justify.
There is no offence committed where a driver who decides to travel below the speed limit shows consideration by leaving others opportunity to pass.
You are just trying to foist your personal views as societal views.
You started off with an erroneous statement about motorised vehicles being about the fastest means from A to B & have gone on from there.
It isn't the sole or even primary mover you suggest, but in fact only one of many considerations. Cost is probably more of a primary mover than speed for many. Cost is a reason that people may legitimately choose to temper their speed.
Tomorrow I am travelling 100 miles. I am doing it in the car & will mostly use motorways & dual carriageways.
Next month I am doing a couple of thousand miles journey, I am purposely avoiding motorways & dual carriageways as much as possible.
If speed were the primary mover I'd be flying (& flying would have been cheaper too as it happens). Fastest or cheapest means from A to B in no way figures in the choices involved in that journey.

There is no problem with using roads for fun driving at any speed. But they are not your personal playground. If you are baulking someone who clearly wishes to travel legally at the posted limit, and who may have pressing reasons and a lot more ground to cover than you have, then you are driving in a selfish, anti social manner.
if you do not want to travel at the posted limit, then pull over and let those who do wish to do so go by. That would be the considerate thing to do, and would let both parties travel at the speed they wish / need to. If you can / do wish to travel slowly, then pulling over for those who want to travel at the posted limit, is hardly going to be a problem for you.

[vonhosen]

Pan Pan Pan said:

vonhosen said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

No, consideration in the first place, is trying to travel at the legal posted limit wherever that is possible. Baulking someone, and then trying to justify baulking someone, by saying a gap will be left for someone who wishes to overtake/ travel at the legal posted limit is a*se about face.
It requires them to carry out the (potentially dangerous) maneuver of overtaking, which they would not even have had to, had the driver in front been travelling at the legal posted limit. Someone overtaking another driver who is already travelling at the posted limit? Yes that would be illegal, and antisocial.

If it was as you suggest we'd have far more minimum speed limits than we do.
There is no suggestion of baulking & then trying to justify.
There is no offence committed where a driver who decides to travel below the speed limit shows consideration by leaving others opportunity to pass.
You are just trying to foist your personal views as societal views.
You started off with an erroneous statement about motorised vehicles being about the fastest means from A to B & have gone on from there.
It isn't the sole or even primary mover you suggest, but in fact only one of many considerations. Cost is probably more of a primary mover than speed for many. Cost is a reason that people may legitimately choose to temper their speed.
Tomorrow I am travelling 100 miles. I am doing it in the car & will mostly use motorways & dual carriageways.
Next month I am doing a couple of thousand miles journey, I am purposely avoiding motorways & dual carriageways as much as possible.
If speed were the primary mover I'd be flying (& flying would have been cheaper too as it happens). Fastest or cheapest means from A to B in no way figures in the choices involved in that journey.

There is no problem with using roads for fun driving at any speed. But they are not your personal playground. If you are baulking someone who clearly wishes to travel legally at the posted limit, and who may have pressing reasons and a lot more ground to cover than you have, then you are driving in a selfish, anti social manner.
if you do not want to travel at the posted limit, then pull over and let those who do wish to do so go by. That would be the considerate thing to do, and would let both parties travel at the speed they wish / need to. If you can / do wish to travel slowly, then pulling over for those who want to travel at the posted limit, is hardly going to be a problem for you.

People use the roads for a variety of reasons & objectives in doing so, not just yours. Why are their reasons any more selfish than yours? Why should they have to unduly compromise their choices so that you don't have to compromise yours?

When fuel prices rise we see average speeds fall, people's choices change & mpg choices rise over progress choices. The roads & the speed limits haven't changed though.

All you can reasonably ask of people is that if they don't want to overtake or travel at the speed limit then they shouldn't unduly or unreasonably hold you up whilst maintaining their choices.
If they pulled over every time somebody was behind them, that would be an unreasonable compromise for them.
Sure if they are travelling slowly & large queues form behind them then they should pull over at regular intervals & allow others to pass (the highway code says so). However, there is nothing that says they have to pull over simply because they are travelling slower than the limit & there is a vehicle behind.

If they've left sufficient gap in front of themselves for you to pull in to on an overtake they've made sufficient provision/compromise to allow for your progress. it's up to you to take it when safe to do so.

No driver is going to get prosecuted for inconsiderate driving doing what I've said above, it's you that's out of kilter.

Edited by vonhosen on Friday 8th April 12:52

[Reg Local]

vonhosen said:

When fuel prices rise we see average speeds fall

Are there any statistics which back this up? (Not arguing with the premise - I'm genuinely interested and the stats, if available, would help me with some research I'm currently working on).

[vonhosen]

Reg Local said:

vonhosen said:

When fuel prices rise we see average speeds fall

Are there any statistics which back this up? (Not arguing with the premise - I'm genuinely interested and the stats, if available, would help me with some research I'm currently working on).

I can't remember where I saw it, but it was from data here in the UK & in the USA.

Edited by vonhosen on Friday 8th April 14:28

[vonhosen]

Not where I saw it, but a quick google.

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=SRiOpYKm51YC&a...

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2011/mar/12/cut-y...

[Reg Local]

vonhosen said:

Not where I saw it, but a quick google.

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=SRiOpYKm51YC&a...

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2011/mar/12/cut-y...

Cheers!

[brman]

Pan Pan Pan said:

You need to understand why motor vehicles, and roads are built. and why posted limits are set on those roads. The sheer selfish arrogance of someone who decides they want to dawdle and hold up as many other drivers ( Some who may have long distances to cover) who legally wish to travel at the posted limit is quite staggering.
Society is not based on the selfish arrogance of a fortunately small minority who see no problem in baulking the progress of those around them, just because `they' don't feel like travelling at the already low set but legal posted limits, but rather on the needs of the majority who do have somewhere they need to be at a specific time.

ok.........

[Mad Chemist]

WD39 said:

Mad Chemist said:

WD39 said:

I agree, what's the hurry?

Unless I'm driving on a DC or MW I haven't overtaken, unless for VERY slow movers, for ages now.

If I come up behind slow moving traffic, I just ease off, pull back and be patient. There is always a large gap between me and the car in front so if a serial speeder wants to OT there is plenty of room.

Much more relaxing.

It's not just serial speeders who wish to overtake. I thought the whole point of advanced driving was to make good progress without compromising safety.

A point in case was my overtake of 12-15 cars yesterday morning, on the way to work, as everyone else was happy staying at 35-40 behind an HGV on a well sited part of a single carriageway NSL road. I never exceeded 60 mph during the manoeuvre. Part of the problem are others inability to keep a sensible following distance so that they may take advantage of the occasional overtaking opportunity when one arrives.

The last time I witnessed driving as you describe, further along the highway was said driver pulled over and being spoken to by the BIB.

I accept that it could have been for another misdemeanour, but on this occasion witnessing the atrocious driving, I don't think so.

I would guess that the cars in your queue were quite happy to be patient and arrive a few minutes late rather than charging through.

Edited by WD39 on Thursday 7th April 20:07

Oh dear, I give up. I will never overtake again, safely or otherwise, based on your opinion.

[otolith]

IAM/RoSPA are hardly likely to mention that the Emperor's bits are flapping in the wind.

[Pan Pan Pan]

vonhosen said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

vonhosen said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

No, consideration in the first place, is trying to travel at the legal posted limit wherever that is possible. Baulking someone, and then trying to justify baulking someone, by saying a gap will be left for someone who wishes to overtake/ travel at the legal posted limit is a*se about face.
It requires them to carry out the (potentially dangerous) maneuver of overtaking, which they would not even have had to, had the driver in front been travelling at the legal posted limit. Someone overtaking another driver who is already travelling at the posted limit? Yes that would be illegal, and antisocial.

If it was as you suggest we'd have far more minimum speed limits than we do.
There is no suggestion of baulking & then trying to justify.
There is no offence committed where a driver who decides to travel below the speed limit shows consideration by leaving others opportunity to pass.
You are just trying to foist your personal views as societal views.
You started off with an erroneous statement about motorised vehicles being about the fastest means from A to B & have gone on from there.
It isn't the sole or even primary mover you suggest, but in fact only one of many considerations. Cost is probably more of a primary mover than speed for many. Cost is a reason that people may legitimately choose to temper their speed.
Tomorrow I am travelling 100 miles. I am doing it in the car & will mostly use motorways & dual carriageways.
Next month I am doing a couple of thousand miles journey, I am purposely avoiding motorways & dual carriageways as much as possible.
If speed were the primary mover I'd be flying (& flying would have been cheaper too as it happens). Fastest or cheapest means from A to B in no way figures in the choices involved in that journey.

There is no problem with using roads for fun driving at any speed. But they are not your personal playground. If you are baulking someone who clearly wishes to travel legally at the posted limit, and who may have pressing reasons and a lot more ground to cover than you have, then you are driving in a selfish, anti social manner.
if you do not want to travel at the posted limit, then pull over and let those who do wish to do so go by. That would be the considerate thing to do, and would let both parties travel at the speed they wish / need to. If you can / do wish to travel slowly, then pulling over for those who want to travel at the posted limit, is hardly going to be a problem for you.

People use the roads for a variety of reasons & objectives in doing so, not just yours. Why are their reasons any more selfish than yours? Why should they have to unduly compromise their choices so that you don't have to compromise yours?

When fuel prices rise we see average speeds fall, people's choices change & mpg choices rise over progress choices. The roads & the speed limits haven't changed though.

All you can reasonably ask of people is that if they don't want to overtake or travel at the speed limit then they shouldn't unduly or unreasonably hold you up whilst maintaining their choices.
If they pulled over every time somebody was behind them, that would be an unreasonable compromise for them.
Sure if they are travelling slowly & large queues form behind them then they should pull over at regular intervals & allow others to pass (the highway code says so). However, there is nothing that says they have to pull over simply because they are travelling slower than the limit & there is a vehicle behind.

If they've left sufficient gap in front of themselves for you to pull in to on an overtake they've made sufficient provision/compromise to allow for your progress. it's up to you to take it when safe to do so.

No driver is going to get prosecuted for inconsiderate driving doing what I've said above, it's you that's out of kilter.

Edited by vonhosen on Friday 8th April 12:52

No driver is going to get prosecuted for travelling at the legal posted limit, but it is possible (though it does not happen nearly enough) for a driver who is deliberately baulking the traffic behind them to be pulled over, and be spoken to.
A driver who is travelling slowly with a line of vehicles built up behind them is clearly driving without due care and attention, and can be prosecuted for doing so.
If a line of traffic is being backed up by a dawdling driver, it is immediately obvious which part of the line of motorists represents the problem vehicle.

[Kawasicki]

Pan Pan Pan said:

No driver is going to get prosecuted for travelling at the legal posted limit, but it is possible (though it does not happen nearly enough) for a driver who is deliberately baulking the traffic behind them to be pulled over, and be spoken to.
A driver who is travelling slowly with a line of vehicles built up behind them is clearly driving without due care and attention, and can be prosecuted for doing so.
If a line of traffic is being backed up by a dawdling driver, it is immediately obvious which part of the line of motorists represents the problem vehicle.

what if a driver is deliberately driving at the speed limit with a line of traffic built up behind them?

[Pan Pan Pan]

Kawasicki said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

No driver is going to get prosecuted for travelling at the legal posted limit, but it is possible (though it does not happen nearly enough) for a driver who is deliberately baulking the traffic behind them to be pulled over, and be spoken to.
A driver who is travelling slowly with a line of vehicles built up behind them is clearly driving without due care and attention, and can be prosecuted for doing so.
If a line of traffic is being backed up by a dawdling driver, it is immediately obvious which part of the line of motorists represents the problem vehicle.

what if a driver is deliberately driving at the speed limit with a line of traffic built up behind them?

If a driver is travelling at the posted limit, the only vehicles which would LEGALLY be able to overtake, would be the police and other emergency service vehicles. Any one else doing so would be driving illegally, but that of course, would be their choice.

[Kawasicki]

Pan Pan Pan said:

Kawasicki said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

No driver is going to get prosecuted for travelling at the legal posted limit, but it is possible (though it does not happen nearly enough) for a driver who is deliberately baulking the traffic behind them to be pulled over, and be spoken to.
A driver who is travelling slowly with a line of vehicles built up behind them is clearly driving without due care and attention, and can be prosecuted for doing so.
If a line of traffic is being backed up by a dawdling driver, it is immediately obvious which part of the line of motorists represents the problem vehicle.

what if a driver is deliberately driving at the speed limit with a line of traffic built up behind them?

If a driver is travelling at the posted limit, the only vehicles which would LEGALLY be able to overtake, would be the police and other emergency service vehicles. Any one else doing so would be driving illegally, but that of course, would be their choice.

Yes, but what if the traffic is being backed up behind the driver who is driving at the limit.

I'm interested because I have been caught speeding twice. The second time I was caught I thought I would try actually driving to the speed limit for a couple of days. I often had a queue of people behind me, some of them overtook in dubious situations. I actually thought I was creating a hazard, even though I was driving legally.

[Pan Pan Pan]

Kawasicki said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

Kawasicki said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

No driver is going to get prosecuted for travelling at the legal posted limit, but it is possible (though it does not happen nearly enough) for a driver who is deliberately baulking the traffic behind them to be pulled over, and be spoken to.
A driver who is travelling slowly with a line of vehicles built up behind them is clearly driving without due care and attention, and can be prosecuted for doing so.
If a line of traffic is being backed up by a dawdling driver, it is immediately obvious which part of the line of motorists represents the problem vehicle.

what if a driver is deliberately driving at the speed limit with a line of traffic built up behind them?

If a driver is travelling at the posted limit, the only vehicles which would LEGALLY be able to overtake, would be the police and other emergency service vehicles. Any one else doing so would be driving illegally, but that of course, would be their choice.

Yes, but what if the traffic is being backed up behind the driver who is driving at the limit.

I'm interested because I have been caught speeding twice. The second time I was caught I thought I would try actually driving to the speed limit for a couple of days. I often had a queue of people behind me, some of them overtook in dubious situations. I actually thought I was creating a hazard, even though I was driving legally.

If traffic is being backed up by a driver travelling at the posted limit, it probably means the posted limit is lower than it should be for that section of road (but we all know that is the case on so many roads in the UK). But if a driver is travelling at the posted limit, that is all that the drivers behind can actually expect of the driver in front.
If they wish to go faster, then knowing that by doing so, they will be driving illegally, is their choice to make, and pay for if caught by the authorities.
Pressuring the driver of the vehicle in front to break the law and exceed the posted limit is not really on, but expecting drivers to at least travel at the low set legal limits where conditions allow is.
Anyone who cannot, or does not want to travel at the low set legal posted limits, when those around them legally wish to do so, should consider whether they are suited to operating a motorized vehicle on public roads at all, where most of those around them wish to travel at the legal posted limit, (and as discussed above, in some cases in excess of it)