Exceed the speed limit? Ever?

[vonhosen]

Pan Pan Pan said:

If a driver is so incompetent or bloody minded that they cannot handle the low set legal limits when road conditions allow, they need to consider whether they are suited to driving a motor vehicle on public roads at all.

It's a simple matter of choice, you don't get to decide their suitability anymore than they don't get to decide yours.

Pan Pan Pan said:

I try to drive to the legal limits, so my values do reflect the law, it is those who choose to impede traffic on a public highway who do not reflect the law.

Your values in not exceeding the limit may reflect the law, but your values in relation to their choices don't.

Pan Pan Pan said:

I have never heard of anyone being prosecuted for travelling at the legal limit, I have heard of people being prosecuted for dawdling, and holding up other road users.

Not in the circumstances I'm outlining. If you have evidence please provide verifiable references/links.

[Kawasicki]

It looks like unnecessarily slow driving is listed as a Road Traffis Offence by the CPS.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/road_traffic_of...

Driving without reasonable consideration
The offence of driving without reasonable consideration under section 3 of the RTA 1988 is committed only when other persons are inconvenienced by the manner of the defendants driving, see section 3ZA(4) RTA 1988.

The maximum penalty is a level 5 fine. The court must also either endorse the drivers licence with between 3 and 9 penalty points (unless there are "special reasons" not to do so), or impose disqualification for a fixed period and/or until a driving test has been passed. The penalty is the same as for driving without due care and attention.

A driving without due consideration charge is more appropriate where the inconvenience is aimed at and suffered by other road users.

Note the essential difference between the two offences under section 3 of the RTA 1988 is that in cases of careless driving the prosecution need not show that any other person was inconvenienced. In cases of inconsiderate driving, there must be evidence that some other user of the road or public place was actually inconvenienced; Dilks v Bowman-Shaw [1981] RTR 4 DC

Charging Practice

This offence is appropriate when the driving amounts to a clear act of incompetence, selfishness, impatience or aggressiveness in addition to some other inconvenience to road users. The following examples are typical of actions likely to be regarded as inconsiderate driving:

flashing of lights to force other drivers in front to give way;
misuse of any lane (including cycling lanes) to avoid queuing or gain some other advantage over other drivers;
unnecessarily remaining in an overtaking lane;
unnecessarily slow driving or braking without good cause;
driving with un-dipped headlights which dazzle oncoming drivers, cyclists or pedestrians;
driving through a puddle causing pedestrians to be splashed;
driving a bus in such a way as to alarm passengers.
Prosecutors must decide which version of the offence to charge as the section creates two separate offences and there is no alternative verdict provision in the magistrates/youth court: R v Surrey Justices, ex parte Witherick [1932] 1 K.B. 340.

[Pan Pan Pan]

vonhosen said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

If a driver is so incompetent or bloody minded that they cannot handle the low set legal limits when road conditions allow, they need to consider whether they are suited to driving a motor vehicle on public roads at all.

It's a simple matter of choice, you don't get to decide their suitability anymore than they don't get to decide yours.

Pan Pan Pan said:

I try to drive to the legal limits, so my values do reflect the law, it is those who choose to impede traffic on a public highway who do not reflect the law.

Your values in not exceeding the limit may reflect the law, but your values in relation to their choices don't.

Pan Pan Pan said:

I have never heard of anyone being prosecuted for travelling at the legal limit, I have heard of people being prosecuted for dawdling, and holding up other road users.

Not in the circumstances I'm outlining. If you have evidence please provide verifiable references/links.

Please show me where a motorist has been prosecuted for travelling at the legal limit. There was an article on Pistonheads some time ago which described the prosecution of a motorist for dawdling on a public highway, I will try to locate it, However this is becoming a waste of time, as I will never accept your strange viewpoint on this issue any more than you will accept mine.
So in view of the hour, I am turning in for the night.

[vonhosen]

Kawasicki said:

It looks like unnecessarily slow driving is listed as a Road Traffis Offence by the CPS.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/road_traffic_of...

Driving without reasonable consideration
The offence of driving without reasonable consideration under section 3 of the RTA 1988 is committed only when other persons are inconvenienced by the manner of the defendants driving, see section 3ZA(4) RTA 1988.

The maximum penalty is a level 5 fine. The court must also either endorse the drivers licence with between 3 and 9 penalty points (unless there are "special reasons" not to do so), or impose disqualification for a fixed period and/or until a driving test has been passed. The penalty is the same as for driving without due care and attention.

A driving without due consideration charge is more appropriate where the inconvenience is aimed at and suffered by other road users.

Note the essential difference between the two offences under section 3 of the RTA 1988 is that in cases of careless driving the prosecution need not show that any other person was inconvenienced. In cases of inconsiderate driving, there must be evidence that some other user of the road or public place was actually inconvenienced; Dilks v Bowman-Shaw [1981] RTR 4 DC

Charging Practice

This offence is appropriate when the driving amounts to a clear act of incompetence, selfishness, impatience or aggressiveness in addition to some other inconvenience to road users. The following examples are typical of actions likely to be regarded as inconsiderate driving:

flashing of lights to force other drivers in front to give way;
misuse of any lane (including cycling lanes) to avoid queuing or gain some other advantage over other drivers;
unnecessarily remaining in an overtaking lane;
unnecessarily slow driving or braking without good cause;
driving with un-dipped headlights which dazzle oncoming drivers, cyclists or pedestrians;
driving through a puddle causing pedestrians to be splashed;
driving a bus in such a way as to alarm passengers.
Prosecutors must decide which version of the offence to charge as the section creates two separate offences and there is no alternative verdict provision in the magistrates/youth court: R v Surrey Justices, ex parte Witherick [1932] 1 K.B. 340.

Define what they consider amounts to unreasonably/unnecessarily slow.
I guarantee you they won't say simply not travelling at the speed limit when it was possible to do that, it will be far more extreme.

[vonhosen]

Pan Pan Pan said:

vonhosen said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

If a driver is so incompetent or bloody minded that they cannot handle the low set legal limits when road conditions allow, they need to consider whether they are suited to driving a motor vehicle on public roads at all.

It's a simple matter of choice, you don't get to decide their suitability anymore than they don't get to decide yours.

Pan Pan Pan said:

I try to drive to the legal limits, so my values do reflect the law, it is those who choose to impede traffic on a public highway who do not reflect the law.

Your values in not exceeding the limit may reflect the law, but your values in relation to their choices don't.

Pan Pan Pan said:

I have never heard of anyone being prosecuted for travelling at the legal limit, I have heard of people being prosecuted for dawdling, and holding up other road users.

Not in the circumstances I'm outlining. If you have evidence please provide verifiable references/links.

Please show me where a motorist has been prosecuted for travelling at the legal limit.

To what purpose?
I'm not alleging that to be the case.

Pan Pan Pan said:

There was an article on Pistonheads some time ago which described the prosecution of a motorist for dawdling on a public highway, I will try to locate it, However this is becoming a waste of time, as I will never accept your strange viewpoint on this issue any more than you will accept mine.
So in view of the hour, I am turning in for the night.

There's nothing strange about my view point, it's why you won't be finding cases for prosecutions in the circumstances I'm talking about.
Happy hunting for something amounting to the fairly minor circumstances being talked about & not extremes.
Good night.

[DukeDickson]

ashleyman said:

I've posted this before but I'll post it here. It's a little off topic but I'd be keen to get opinions.

With the rise of dash cams and the very realistic threat of public humiliation and shame if you're caught driving questionably do you find that you're more careful with what manoeuvres you pull on the road?

I ask this because the other week I was driving along a normal single lane road which was a posted 40. The guy in front was doing 25. I caught up pretty quickly and I felt vulnerable as I could see cars trundling down the road in the distance knowing they'd be with me in a matter of a minute or so. I was preparing to commit to an overtake, the road was clear, road markings allowed the manoeuvre, I could accelerate safely and pull in with plenty of time - it was just us two on the road for about 1/4 mile in each direction.

Just as I went to indicate right to perform this move, I noticed a dash cam sitting proudly underneath his rear view mirror. Seeing this made me cancel my ideas of overtaking and just behind him until the lanes split about a mile up ahead. I was scared of being put on YouTube and shamed for overtaking someone.

You've guessed it, car comes speeding up behind me at 40 and is now tailgating me due to the guy in fronts bad driving.

What would you do?

Carry on with the original decision, providing it was sound. Unless you're going to drive like a moron, what difference would it make?
Strikes me as being a bit like not passing a MLM doing 50-60, in the inside lane, in a perfectly acceptable sense, because there might be (or is) trafpol around. Maybe not even that far.

Why would it or should it affect your decision?

[Kawasicki]

vonhosen said:

Kawasicki said:

It looks like unnecessarily slow driving is listed as a Road Traffis Offence by the CPS.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/road_traffic_of...

Driving without reasonable consideration
The offence of driving without reasonable consideration under section 3 of the RTA 1988 is committed only when other persons are inconvenienced by the manner of the defendants driving, see section 3ZA(4) RTA 1988.

The maximum penalty is a level 5 fine. The court must also either endorse the drivers licence with between 3 and 9 penalty points (unless there are "special reasons" not to do so), or impose disqualification for a fixed period and/or until a driving test has been passed. The penalty is the same as for driving without due care and attention.

A driving without due consideration charge is more appropriate where the inconvenience is aimed at and suffered by other road users.

Note the essential difference between the two offences under section 3 of the RTA 1988 is that in cases of careless driving the prosecution need not show that any other person was inconvenienced. In cases of inconsiderate driving, there must be evidence that some other user of the road or public place was actually inconvenienced; Dilks v Bowman-Shaw [1981] RTR 4 DC

Charging Practice

This offence is appropriate when the driving amounts to a clear act of incompetence, selfishness, impatience or aggressiveness in addition to some other inconvenience to road users. The following examples are typical of actions likely to be regarded as inconsiderate driving:

flashing of lights to force other drivers in front to give way;
misuse of any lane (including cycling lanes) to avoid queuing or gain some other advantage over other drivers;
unnecessarily remaining in an overtaking lane;
unnecessarily slow driving or braking without good cause;
driving with un-dipped headlights which dazzle oncoming drivers, cyclists or pedestrians;
driving through a puddle causing pedestrians to be splashed;
driving a bus in such a way as to alarm passengers.
Prosecutors must decide which version of the offence to charge as the section creates two separate offences and there is no alternative verdict provision in the magistrates/youth court: R v Surrey Justices, ex parte Witherick [1932] 1 K.B. 340.

Define what they consider amounts to unreasonably/unnecessarily slow.
I guarantee you they won't say simply not travelling at the speed limit when it was possible to do that, it will be far more extreme.

I don't know what the CPS consider to be unreasonably slow. That is for the CPS to decide, the law isn't very clear on it.

[vonhosen]

Kawasicki said:

vonhosen said:

Kawasicki said:

It looks like unnecessarily slow driving is listed as a Road Traffis Offence by the CPS.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/road_traffic_of...

Driving without reasonable consideration
The offence of driving without reasonable consideration under section 3 of the RTA 1988 is committed only when other persons are inconvenienced by the manner of the defendants driving, see section 3ZA(4) RTA 1988.

The maximum penalty is a level 5 fine. The court must also either endorse the drivers licence with between 3 and 9 penalty points (unless there are "special reasons" not to do so), or impose disqualification for a fixed period and/or until a driving test has been passed. The penalty is the same as for driving without due care and attention.

A driving without due consideration charge is more appropriate where the inconvenience is aimed at and suffered by other road users.

Note the essential difference between the two offences under section 3 of the RTA 1988 is that in cases of careless driving the prosecution need not show that any other person was inconvenienced. In cases of inconsiderate driving, there must be evidence that some other user of the road or public place was actually inconvenienced; Dilks v Bowman-Shaw [1981] RTR 4 DC

Charging Practice

This offence is appropriate when the driving amounts to a clear act of incompetence, selfishness, impatience or aggressiveness in addition to some other inconvenience to road users. The following examples are typical of actions likely to be regarded as inconsiderate driving:

flashing of lights to force other drivers in front to give way;
misuse of any lane (including cycling lanes) to avoid queuing or gain some other advantage over other drivers;
unnecessarily remaining in an overtaking lane;
unnecessarily slow driving or braking without good cause;
driving with un-dipped headlights which dazzle oncoming drivers, cyclists or pedestrians;
driving through a puddle causing pedestrians to be splashed;
driving a bus in such a way as to alarm passengers.
Prosecutors must decide which version of the offence to charge as the section creates two separate offences and there is no alternative verdict provision in the magistrates/youth court: R v Surrey Justices, ex parte Witherick [1932] 1 K.B. 340.

Define what they consider amounts to unreasonably/unnecessarily slow.
I guarantee you they won't say simply not travelling at the speed limit when it was possible to do that, it will be far more extreme.

I don't know what the CPS consider to be unreasonably slow. That is for the CPS to decide, the law isn't very clear on it.

It will be more than trivial I can assure you & it's got to get past the Police before it even gets to them. The CPS won't even get to make a judgement because it won't get to them unless there is considerable evidence of extended unreasonableness & inconvenience.

[DukeDickson]

WD39 said:

Yes, travelling at a speed which is safe and safe for only them. This perspective does not take into account other drivers.

This is the unpredictable factor.

Since I left my 'boy racer' days behind me and became a 'slower' driver, (not tortoise speed) and kept to the posted limits I have become a more relaxed driver and am at last enjoying it and not charging about in a thoughtless and irresponsible manner.

That is not to say that I don't exceed the limit on occasion, but it's rare and not a default position.

I hope that you get the right advice.

Surely any advanced driver worthy of being described as such would take account of, or at very least plan to avoid, other slightly/somewhat wobbly drivers, along with the slightly more extreme ones who probably shouldn't have a licence?


Going a bit quicker at the right times than the generally accepted norm isn't remotely thoughtless or irresponsible. I can pretty much guarantee that without actually thinking as such, I actually think far more about what's going on than 99%+ of 'slower drivers'. I'm also sure I'm not alone in this.

That's not to say I'm perfect, just that I actually care and try and act accordingly .

[Kawasicki]

vonhosen said:

It will be more than trivial I can assure you & it's got to get past the Police before it even gets to them. The CPS won't even get to make a judgement because it won't get to them unless there is considerable evidence of extended unreasonableness & inconvenience.

Yes, I imagine it would have to be incredibly slow to bring a charge. Merely inconveniencing or being inconsiderate of other road users is not likely to have any consequences.

[vonhosen]

Kawasicki said:

vonhosen said:

It will be more than trivial I can assure you & it's got to get past the Police before it even gets to them. The CPS won't even get to make a judgement because it won't get to them unless there is considerable evidence of extended unreasonableness & inconvenience.

Yes, I imagine it would have to be incredibly slow to bring a charge. Merely inconveniencing or being inconsiderate of other road users is not likely to have any consequences.

We all get inconvenienced on the roads (we are having to share & that can be inconvenient for personal reasons) & we will all be blind to how we've inconvenienced other people at times (inconsiderate). The law is there to deal with that where it tips from an acceptable level to an unacceptable level within a societal view rather than the perhaps what can be a biased personal view.

[Pan Pan Pan]

Just checked several driving test web sites, including those of advanced driving courses, and it seems that driving at 10mph or more below a posted limit is considered to be driving without due care and attention to other road users.
One of the driving test websites stated that where road and weather conditions allow, a driver should always try to drive at the posted limit.

[BrumBrumDuffy]

Pan Pan Pan said:

Just checked several driving test web sites, including those of advanced driving courses, and it seems that driving at 10mph or more below a posted limit is considered to be driving without due care and attention to other road users.
One of the driving test websites stated that where road and weather conditions allow, a driver should always try to drive at the posted limit.

That's interesting; have you got the links - it would be good to see these

[Pan Pan Pan]

BrumBrumDuffy said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

Just checked several driving test web sites, including those of advanced driving courses, and it seems that driving at 10mph or more below a posted limit is considered to be driving without due care and attention to other road users.
One of the driving test websites stated that where road and weather conditions allow, a driver should always try to drive at the posted limit.

That's interesting; have you got the links - it would be good to see these

Hi BrumBrumDuffy One of the several driving test websites was www. Driving test tips.
and the comments on driving too slowly was in the advanced driving course website from Paul Ripley.

[vonhosen]

Pan Pan Pan said:

Just checked several driving test web sites, including those of advanced driving courses, and it seems that driving at 10mph or more below a posted limit is considered to be driving without due care and attention to other road users.
One of the driving test websites stated that where road and weather conditions allow, a driver should always try to drive at the posted limit.

They don't decide what's without due care & inconsiderate, they are legal terms so the law & how it's applied does. If you want know how the Police are likely to proceed with such matters I'll tell you, I used to be a Police officer in a past life. All advanced clubs can tell you is it doesn't meet their advanced standards, which by definition are not the standards for our roads as the roads aren't only used by those who do advanced tests (they are a very small minority), they are just fringe clubs.

If you want to know about DVSA tests & how the issue is dealt with (you've got to remember that the DVSA test is a test & therefore isn't just applying what is legal or even societal norms), which are more applicable to all, I'll tell you because I was a DVSA examiner in the past too.

I'll give you a clue though, their application of it doesn't approach what you want.

[waremark]

Pan Pan Pan said:

If a driver is so incompetent or bloody minded that they cannot handle the low set legal limits when road conditions allow, they need to consider whether they are suited to driving a motor vehicle on public roads at all.

If a driver is so intolerant of other lawful and reasonable road users, they need to consider whether they are suited to driving a motor vehicle on public roads at all.

By the way, in my experience the majority of drivers exceed lower limits but drive below the national single carriageway limit. And the pace of traffic on SCWs is often dictated by vehicles with lower limits.

PS I am not usually disrespectful in these forums. This post reflects how strongly I disagree with PPP.

Edited by waremark on Saturday 9th April 17:39

[mph1977]

Pan Pan Pan said:

mph1977 said:

Pan Pan Pan,

oh dear me, as Von or Reg has previously pointed out if this were the case there would be more minimum speed limits in place ...

it's a Limit not a target.

That comment is quite meaningless, just like the speed kills mantra loved by some politicians.
Please show me where minimum speed limits are applied, Even doing up to 52000 miles a year I cannot really say I have ever been in one.

ever been on a motorway ? or other 'special road' or in some ofthe tunnels etc ...

[otolith]

I was at the back of a queue today led by someone consistently driving 10mph below the limit - through 60 and 50 zones. Then did exactly 30 in a 30. Slightly odd.

[anonymous-user]

Unfortunately, the "LAW" is an ass ;-)


in 1963, cars looked like this, and the motorway limit was set (very reasonably) at 70mph:





In 2016, cars look like this:




And the limit is..........



I can't think of another set of laws so out-of-touch with the real world. Remember, in the 1960's it was illegal to be gay, pubs shut their doors well before midnight, "Europe" didn't exist and peoples idea of a beach holiday was 5 days in Torquay!


As it becomes easier and easier to routinely exceed these ridiculous limits by large margins in modern cars, it simply re-enforces a disregard for the law in the average driver. And hence, you'll see day on day, a huge number of people exceeding limits where it DOES matter (like 30mph in a confined built up area, where 10mph might be too fast)

[AER]

Max_Torque said:

Unfortunately, the "LAW" is an ass ;-)


in 1963, cars looked like this, and the motorway limit was set (very reasonably) at 70mph:





In 2016, cars look like this:




And the limit is..........

Based on the evidence you present here, quite clearly the perspective on motoring has been substantially lowered over the years...