RE: Dangerous Driving Reviewed
Discussion
So the recurring theme seems to be Rule 57 of the highway code, which EVERYONE should learn.
'Drive at a speed pertinent to the distance that you can see to be clear'
This is the only thing that people ever need learn. It encompasses everything you can possibly need to know about driving a car, if you dont leave yourself enough space to stop if the unthinkable happens then things are going to go tits up.
As for 96m being the shortest possible distance to stop at 70mph, well I am sorry, but thats rubbish.
911 Turbo, ceramic brakes 70-0 in just under 100ft.
You cant possibly say that it takes over 200ft to think about pressing the brake pedal.
The IAM test is meant as a way to enlighten drivers that the standard test cant. It uses techniques that are complimentary to travelling at higher than the prescribed speed limit. They may say stick to the speed limit during the test, but certaintly during the period of training that I went through for both IAM and RoSPA the ex advanced police driving instructor couldnt really care how fast I was going as long as I was going about it safely.
IAM teach guidelines and nothing more. Its not an exclusive club of highly trained drivers, its people as you say who fancy knowing a formulated way of improving their skills. Nothing wrong with that at all, but there is something wrong with thinking that obeying its guidelines to the letter makes one a better driver.
Matt.
'Drive at a speed pertinent to the distance that you can see to be clear'
This is the only thing that people ever need learn. It encompasses everything you can possibly need to know about driving a car, if you dont leave yourself enough space to stop if the unthinkable happens then things are going to go tits up.
As for 96m being the shortest possible distance to stop at 70mph, well I am sorry, but thats rubbish.
911 Turbo, ceramic brakes 70-0 in just under 100ft.
You cant possibly say that it takes over 200ft to think about pressing the brake pedal.
The IAM test is meant as a way to enlighten drivers that the standard test cant. It uses techniques that are complimentary to travelling at higher than the prescribed speed limit. They may say stick to the speed limit during the test, but certaintly during the period of training that I went through for both IAM and RoSPA the ex advanced police driving instructor couldnt really care how fast I was going as long as I was going about it safely.
IAM teach guidelines and nothing more. Its not an exclusive club of highly trained drivers, its people as you say who fancy knowing a formulated way of improving their skills. Nothing wrong with that at all, but there is something wrong with thinking that obeying its guidelines to the letter makes one a better driver.
Matt.
Then I would suggest the book is wrong.
/quote
Overall safe stopping distance...
Thinking distance + Braking distance = Stopping distance
...96m (is) the ...shortest stopping distance at...70mph.
/quote
Based on WHAT CAR? as braking distance is dependant on momentum. The porche 911 can stop much quicker than the nissan micra traveling at the same speed, because it has better brakes. (FACT)
/quote
'...International evidence clearly shows that lower speed limits result in fewer accidents...drivers who drive fast regardless of the circumstances have an accident risk 3 to 5 times greater than those who do not. At greater speeds the risks obviously increase - you approach hazards faster, you have less time to react, and the impact danger is greater.
/quote
Again where is this "fact" coming from seeing as motorways are statistically the safest roads in the country but have the highest limits. Equally Germany Autobhans have one of the smallest accident rates in europe.
The number of deaths from those accidents that do happen will be higher proportionaly to accidents at a lower speed but that is physics.
I'm concerned because I have applied to the IAM and if they are going to try to sell me "speed kills" then I can see the lesson being rather short (when I eventually get one... 3 months waiting now).
I quite agree that inappropiate speed kills but certainly the IAM motorbike division clearly believes unofficially that the speed limits are utter b*ll*cks and ride accordingly to the road and conditions.
/quote
Overall safe stopping distance...
Thinking distance + Braking distance = Stopping distance
...96m (is) the ...shortest stopping distance at...70mph.
/quote
Based on WHAT CAR? as braking distance is dependant on momentum. The porche 911 can stop much quicker than the nissan micra traveling at the same speed, because it has better brakes. (FACT)
/quote
'...International evidence clearly shows that lower speed limits result in fewer accidents...drivers who drive fast regardless of the circumstances have an accident risk 3 to 5 times greater than those who do not. At greater speeds the risks obviously increase - you approach hazards faster, you have less time to react, and the impact danger is greater.
/quote
Again where is this "fact" coming from seeing as motorways are statistically the safest roads in the country but have the highest limits. Equally Germany Autobhans have one of the smallest accident rates in europe.
The number of deaths from those accidents that do happen will be higher proportionaly to accidents at a lower speed but that is physics.
I'm concerned because I have applied to the IAM and if they are going to try to sell me "speed kills" then I can see the lesson being rather short (when I eventually get one... 3 months waiting now).
I quite agree that inappropiate speed kills but certainly the IAM motorbike division clearly believes unofficially that the speed limits are utter b*ll*cks and ride accordingly to the road and conditions.
As a company car driver, we were all given a half-day 'defensive driving' course, taken by ex-police instructors.
The most important elements of this are simply stated as observation and concentration and "Only a fool breaks the two second rule".
I find it absolutely amazing that there is so little attention paid to what's going on around them by most drivers.
How difficult can it be to get those simple messages across to the vast untrained bulk of numpties out there getting in our way?
The most important elements of this are simply stated as observation and concentration and "Only a fool breaks the two second rule".
I find it absolutely amazing that there is so little attention paid to what's going on around them by most drivers.
How difficult can it be to get those simple messages across to the vast untrained bulk of numpties out there getting in our way?
IMHO excessive speed makes accidents worse!
For istance, your driving along in a town, 30 mph, and some stupid half-wit decides the road is clear and steps out into your bumper, his leg will break and your car will be dented. If you hit him at 3 mph, he will roll over the bonnet and wing then jump up and start screaming and shouting at you!!!
Another but out of town! Two cars travelling towards each other! TVR Tuscan doing 65 on a clear A class road, mumn in a 4x4 with 18 kids and a boot of shopping doing her makeup etc travelling at 65! She strays and hits the Tiv head on! Thats like drving into a brick wall (some people find pleasure in doing this) at 130mph! It's gonna hurt!!!
In the case of the Pedestrian, the Driver would have been blamed, local busy-bodies would have been screaming and shouting about speed and the 'Speed Kills' lot would jump on it from a great height!!! If there was a law introduced preventing people from crossing the road at places other than designated crossing,(as in the US) incidents like that would drop dramatically!!!
In the Case of the Tuscan and the 4x4.If anybody survived, (have you ever seen anyone walk away from hitting something at 130mph??) The Tiv driver would have been blamed and the Mum would have said 'he hit me', 'he was going too fast' yada yada ya!! All because he has a sports car! And what is the best way to deal with mums in 4x4's???
For istance, your driving along in a town, 30 mph, and some stupid half-wit decides the road is clear and steps out into your bumper, his leg will break and your car will be dented. If you hit him at 3 mph, he will roll over the bonnet and wing then jump up and start screaming and shouting at you!!!
Another but out of town! Two cars travelling towards each other! TVR Tuscan doing 65 on a clear A class road, mumn in a 4x4 with 18 kids and a boot of shopping doing her makeup etc travelling at 65! She strays and hits the Tiv head on! Thats like drving into a brick wall (some people find pleasure in doing this) at 130mph! It's gonna hurt!!!
In the case of the Pedestrian, the Driver would have been blamed, local busy-bodies would have been screaming and shouting about speed and the 'Speed Kills' lot would jump on it from a great height!!! If there was a law introduced preventing people from crossing the road at places other than designated crossing,(as in the US) incidents like that would drop dramatically!!!
In the Case of the Tuscan and the 4x4.If anybody survived, (have you ever seen anyone walk away from hitting something at 130mph??) The Tiv driver would have been blamed and the Mum would have said 'he hit me', 'he was going too fast' yada yada ya!! All because he has a sports car! And what is the best way to deal with mums in 4x4's???
Install a device that automatically deflates a tyre on the 4x4 when parked - when was the last time you saw a school run mum change a wheel? (I've seen a few driving with nearly flat tyres, paying as much attention as usual)
Or introduce the rule that all owners of 4x4s must prove they can park it in just 1 supermaket parking place on a monthly basis, or forfeit their license. I garuantee they'd almost all be off the roads in a couple of months
(Can't remember who originally came up with this, but it was someone on this board)
Or introduce the rule that all owners of 4x4s must prove they can park it in just 1 supermaket parking place on a monthly basis, or forfeit their license. I garuantee they'd almost all be off the roads in a couple of months
(Can't remember who originally came up with this, but it was someone on this board)I don't think any of us here would dissagree that inappropriate speed is dangerous. Our debate here is what speeds are appropiate. Speed alone is not dangerous, doing 120 on a motorway with no other cars on it is far less likely to result in a serious accident than driving at 40 through the middle of most towns.
This doesn't mean that doing 120 mph on a motorway is completely safe, (I had a blowout at 80 once) but the only way to be completely safe with a car is to leave it in the garage. Living day to day is taking a (small) risk.
I did take the IAM training and test, though I failed it (on speeding) do believe that it is a very worthwhile course as at the time (18) it taught me much more aware of what was going on around me on the road. The instructor I had unofficially said that speed limits are b*ll*cks. Maybe thats why I failed.
One of the funniest things I ever saw was arriving at the IAM meet, getting out of my car and watching an old duffer in a corolla park 2 spaces down. He reversed into the spot, hit the bollard at the end of the spot hard, paused, moved 6" forward and got out as if nothing had happened. You guessed it, there was an IAM sticker on his car.
Thats increased observation for you.
This doesn't mean that doing 120 mph on a motorway is completely safe, (I had a blowout at 80 once) but the only way to be completely safe with a car is to leave it in the garage. Living day to day is taking a (small) risk.
I did take the IAM training and test, though I failed it (on speeding) do believe that it is a very worthwhile course as at the time (18) it taught me much more aware of what was going on around me on the road. The instructor I had unofficially said that speed limits are b*ll*cks. Maybe thats why I failed.
One of the funniest things I ever saw was arriving at the IAM meet, getting out of my car and watching an old duffer in a corolla park 2 spaces down. He reversed into the spot, hit the bollard at the end of the spot hard, paused, moved 6" forward and got out as if nothing had happened. You guessed it, there was an IAM sticker on his car.
Thats increased observation for you.
Gibson I am sorry if you feel you were abused on the other thread. I felt I just replied giving you my view of the criticism you aimed at me. There was nothing personal about my response. Many of the other posts on the thread were supportive of my stance. I was however alluding to the notion that in an ideal world your view would be a good one. It is only right and proper that everyone should feel compelled to support the law. Most of the posts here support the drawing of a line where good fast driving ends and lunacy begins.
If there is one issue that should be free from a political agenda it is road safety, unfortunately that is not the case. The greens identify more with drug addicts in the gutter than global commercial succes. As a result they aspire to getting all of us to live like them (cardigan with holes in, an eight a day and lots of anti everything discussion).
We don't really need complex rules to manage the roads. We just need competent empowered police who are capable of making sound judgements about what sort of driving is acceptable and where. Just ensuring they get good training and giving them the power to impose driver training panalties on the miscreants would solve most of the problems. We certainly don't need the valueless contribution of courts and magistrates. The privvy council (sexually repressed parasites
) are certainly unable to contribute positively to the debate. If we are to be continually subjected to knee jerk politically inspired road law then there will in the end only be one outcome. More deaths.
If there is one issue that should be free from a political agenda it is road safety, unfortunately that is not the case. The greens identify more with drug addicts in the gutter than global commercial succes. As a result they aspire to getting all of us to live like them (cardigan with holes in, an eight a day and lots of anti everything discussion).
We don't really need complex rules to manage the roads. We just need competent empowered police who are capable of making sound judgements about what sort of driving is acceptable and where. Just ensuring they get good training and giving them the power to impose driver training panalties on the miscreants would solve most of the problems. We certainly don't need the valueless contribution of courts and magistrates. The privvy council (sexually repressed parasites
) are certainly unable to contribute positively to the debate. If we are to be continually subjected to knee jerk politically inspired road law then there will in the end only be one outcome. More deaths.Matt,
I did not say one has to obey the guidelines to the letter, nor did I imply it.
"Never drive so fast you cannot stop comfortably on your side of the road within the distance you can see to be clear." - indeed says it all.
I disagree with you, however, on 2 points
1. You say IAM and Rospa couldn't care at what speed you're driving. When I qualified with IAM, you observed the law, and that will not have changed. Any organisation that professed to promote good and safe driving, yet permitted its drivers to ignore speed limits, would not be worth the name and would be a matter of grave public concern.
I suspect you are trying to say something different, which is that IAM and Rospa are realists in that they acknowledge that speed limits are most often honoured in the breach, and are the subject of fierce debate. If, however, your assessor when in control of your driving were to give you his permission to break the law, he would be aiding and abetting your criminal activity.
2. As for your ceramic brakes, some cars do have enormous stopping power, which in itself is a tremendous safety feature, and much therefore to be welcomed. It must be a delight to be able to stop on a sixpence, which must add enormously to the driving experience.
You appear to take the view, however, that because such brakes can do wondrous things (60 to 0 in 2.3 seconds), this means that in all situations driving must be safe, since they will stop the car in time. I do not agree that this distance includes thinking distance, which is impossible.
Might it be the case that your belief in your brakes is making you habitually "drive into danger," to mention another Roadcraft concept, which is part of the driver "attitude," I quoted earlier? - "The speed at which you drive is one of the most important factors in determining your risk of having an accident. The faster you go, the less chance you have of taking avoiding action, and the greater your risk of having an accident. Speed is largely a matter of choice - Good driving requires you to drive at a speed that is safe for the conditions". Given your belief in your brakes, might you not be assessing the risks of your speed, and instead be emotionally caught up in and thinking about the power of your driving machine.
More to the point, In Autofinder - News and Reviews
Braking News - Recent Developments in Braking Technology
(C.) David Frawley 2001
the author says about ceramic brakes: "Having tested the standard Porsche brakes I can see little justification for the use of ceramic brakes outside serious GT racing as the standard brakes will, if provoked, produce deceleration G forces akin to a plane at take off, only more so!"
One could readily argue that there is no place on ordinary roads for performance as on a racetrack, since you are not on a racetrack, but surrounded by much slower, and less powerful vehicles. If the driver drives on such roads as if he is on a racetrack, he is dangerous, and extremely so. If he drives commensurate with the conditions described, using the power of his vehicle to do so safely, then he is safe.
Gibson
I did not say one has to obey the guidelines to the letter, nor did I imply it.
"Never drive so fast you cannot stop comfortably on your side of the road within the distance you can see to be clear." - indeed says it all.
I disagree with you, however, on 2 points
1. You say IAM and Rospa couldn't care at what speed you're driving. When I qualified with IAM, you observed the law, and that will not have changed. Any organisation that professed to promote good and safe driving, yet permitted its drivers to ignore speed limits, would not be worth the name and would be a matter of grave public concern.
I suspect you are trying to say something different, which is that IAM and Rospa are realists in that they acknowledge that speed limits are most often honoured in the breach, and are the subject of fierce debate. If, however, your assessor when in control of your driving were to give you his permission to break the law, he would be aiding and abetting your criminal activity.
2. As for your ceramic brakes, some cars do have enormous stopping power, which in itself is a tremendous safety feature, and much therefore to be welcomed. It must be a delight to be able to stop on a sixpence, which must add enormously to the driving experience.
You appear to take the view, however, that because such brakes can do wondrous things (60 to 0 in 2.3 seconds), this means that in all situations driving must be safe, since they will stop the car in time. I do not agree that this distance includes thinking distance, which is impossible.
Might it be the case that your belief in your brakes is making you habitually "drive into danger," to mention another Roadcraft concept, which is part of the driver "attitude," I quoted earlier? - "The speed at which you drive is one of the most important factors in determining your risk of having an accident. The faster you go, the less chance you have of taking avoiding action, and the greater your risk of having an accident. Speed is largely a matter of choice - Good driving requires you to drive at a speed that is safe for the conditions". Given your belief in your brakes, might you not be assessing the risks of your speed, and instead be emotionally caught up in and thinking about the power of your driving machine.
More to the point, In Autofinder - News and Reviews
Braking News - Recent Developments in Braking Technology
(C.) David Frawley 2001
the author says about ceramic brakes: "Having tested the standard Porsche brakes I can see little justification for the use of ceramic brakes outside serious GT racing as the standard brakes will, if provoked, produce deceleration G forces akin to a plane at take off, only more so!"
One could readily argue that there is no place on ordinary roads for performance as on a racetrack, since you are not on a racetrack, but surrounded by much slower, and less powerful vehicles. If the driver drives on such roads as if he is on a racetrack, he is dangerous, and extremely so. If he drives commensurate with the conditions described, using the power of his vehicle to do so safely, then he is safe.
Gibson
Interesting points, xylophone...
My experience of the IAM is that
They absolutely cannot condone breaking of the laws of the road. Obviously. Even when they are silly. Fair enough. This is not the IAM's place it being "road safety organisation".
The ABD is the proper political forum for changing law such that it reflects modern private transport. Strangely the seniors members of the ABD are largely IAM members as well...but there you go!
Generally individuals in the IAM I suspect take the view that if one is driving responsibly and safely and to the conditions and the road and taking into account all other road users then perhaps the speed limit is not actually the highest speed that can safely be used at that time....
Everyone on this board is in violent agreement about driving safely and to the conditions with excellent observation and revile those who do not.
There is clearly some dispute about whether the posted speed limit is always appropriate. Frankly I see roads every day around Hampshire where the limit is utterly inappropriate to the road. 40s which should be 30s. 30s which should be 20s. 50 which should be NSL. 40 which should be NSL! NSLs which should be 95!
If the limits themselves were reasonable it would be far easier to get drivers to respect them. As it is our Police Forces are in a ridiculous position where the huge majority of the population DO NOT RESPECT THE LAW. This CANNOT BE RIGHT! Lets set more appropriate limits!
Points about performance cars:
Their acceleration and decelerative capabilities clearly outstrip nearly everything else on the road. Thats what enthusiastic drivers pay all that money for!
When safe to do so it is very pleasurable to make use of those facilities. A good driver will understand either through IAM/Rospa training or simply through experience and a desire to drive well when it is safe and when it is not. A good driver will know that these facilities are BEYOND the expectations of other road users and WILL NOT use them when other drivers may therefore be put in jeapordy. When others are not present and conditions allow - wey hey!
Unfortunately there are bad drivers who take risks themselves and put others at risk in ALL cars. A bad driver in a shopping trolley is as dangerous as a bad driver in a sports car..they both achieve enough momentum to be lethal..
To summarise: IAM/Rospa - good. Bad drivers: BAD. Sports cars: good. Limits: Some OK, some dangerous!, some just silly.
Sorry about the rant. I feel so much better now!
My experience of the IAM is that
They absolutely cannot condone breaking of the laws of the road. Obviously. Even when they are silly. Fair enough. This is not the IAM's place it being "road safety organisation".
The ABD is the proper political forum for changing law such that it reflects modern private transport. Strangely the seniors members of the ABD are largely IAM members as well...but there you go!
Generally individuals in the IAM I suspect take the view that if one is driving responsibly and safely and to the conditions and the road and taking into account all other road users then perhaps the speed limit is not actually the highest speed that can safely be used at that time....
Everyone on this board is in violent agreement about driving safely and to the conditions with excellent observation and revile those who do not.
There is clearly some dispute about whether the posted speed limit is always appropriate. Frankly I see roads every day around Hampshire where the limit is utterly inappropriate to the road. 40s which should be 30s. 30s which should be 20s. 50 which should be NSL. 40 which should be NSL! NSLs which should be 95!
If the limits themselves were reasonable it would be far easier to get drivers to respect them. As it is our Police Forces are in a ridiculous position where the huge majority of the population DO NOT RESPECT THE LAW. This CANNOT BE RIGHT! Lets set more appropriate limits!
Points about performance cars:
Their acceleration and decelerative capabilities clearly outstrip nearly everything else on the road. Thats what enthusiastic drivers pay all that money for!
When safe to do so it is very pleasurable to make use of those facilities. A good driver will understand either through IAM/Rospa training or simply through experience and a desire to drive well when it is safe and when it is not. A good driver will know that these facilities are BEYOND the expectations of other road users and WILL NOT use them when other drivers may therefore be put in jeapordy. When others are not present and conditions allow - wey hey!
Unfortunately there are bad drivers who take risks themselves and put others at risk in ALL cars. A bad driver in a shopping trolley is as dangerous as a bad driver in a sports car..they both achieve enough momentum to be lethal..
To summarise: IAM/Rospa - good. Bad drivers: BAD. Sports cars: good. Limits: Some OK, some dangerous!, some just silly.
Sorry about the rant. I feel so much better now!
Don,
I am delighted to hear what you say, and clearly I/you/some of us in this thread do share common views about speed and its use.
However, the idea that speed limits are wrong and people do not respect the law IMHO is wholly irrelevant. The fact is these are the limits, they are the law. To choose, arbitrarily (because they would be no such limits) what you, as a driver, consider to be the limit, would be to allow in anarchy and chaos, and would be totally out of order. What gives you, as an individual, the right to impose your view of what the limit should be on your fellow road users? Personal judgment is never a ground for behaviour in public - there has to be a standard and the limits are it. Why can't people accept that? The reason why is that they have powerful cars, that can go much faster, and so why shouldn't they? Ok. If you are aware of the pros and cons of fast driving,and you can do so safely, a huge if IMHO, then you bring any offences down on your own head. As you say, the cowboys who don't, or more accurately, can't behave in this way, are the real villains. Again as you say, so long as you don't cross the dividing line between the two types, you are being responsible.
I have sympathy with the rationale behind this website that the law needs to be brought up to date to reflect modern driving, cars and conditions, but I have to say that IMHO some of the opinions I see expressed in this website make my hair stand on end, and do such a legitimate objective a great disservice. "Attitude" is the key. Either you have a proper attitude, or you are a danger to others. A blanket approach that stuff this, stuff that, is a recipe for mayhem and death. Such edgits, thankfully in the small minority, are incorrigible, and should be barred from driving. Don't you agree?
Gibson
I am delighted to hear what you say, and clearly I/you/some of us in this thread do share common views about speed and its use.
However, the idea that speed limits are wrong and people do not respect the law IMHO is wholly irrelevant. The fact is these are the limits, they are the law. To choose, arbitrarily (because they would be no such limits) what you, as a driver, consider to be the limit, would be to allow in anarchy and chaos, and would be totally out of order. What gives you, as an individual, the right to impose your view of what the limit should be on your fellow road users? Personal judgment is never a ground for behaviour in public - there has to be a standard and the limits are it. Why can't people accept that? The reason why is that they have powerful cars, that can go much faster, and so why shouldn't they? Ok. If you are aware of the pros and cons of fast driving,and you can do so safely, a huge if IMHO, then you bring any offences down on your own head. As you say, the cowboys who don't, or more accurately, can't behave in this way, are the real villains. Again as you say, so long as you don't cross the dividing line between the two types, you are being responsible.
I have sympathy with the rationale behind this website that the law needs to be brought up to date to reflect modern driving, cars and conditions, but I have to say that IMHO some of the opinions I see expressed in this website make my hair stand on end, and do such a legitimate objective a great disservice. "Attitude" is the key. Either you have a proper attitude, or you are a danger to others. A blanket approach that stuff this, stuff that, is a recipe for mayhem and death. Such edgits, thankfully in the small minority, are incorrigible, and should be barred from driving. Don't you agree?
Gibson
Tell me something Gibson. Did Shakespear, Galileo, Einstien, Sassoon, Cromwell, Henry viii, Darwin, to name a few have the right attitude? Were they made of the right stuff jolly good chaps and all that knew the form etc. Or did they question current thinking, dismiss servitude and convention? I suspect the latter.
The recent suicide bomber who had second thoughts when questionned said he was unsure about the virgins. He believed that he would get his guaranteed first class ticket to heaven but he had also been promised 100 virgins. He thought he would get perhaps 10 or so but not 100 and that was what he really wanted so he aborted his mission.
He wasn't really going anywhere with that sort of thinking was he? I would love to know where your train of though is taking you? How in the universe do you expect to make any progress with bringing about sensible legislation and enforcement if you refuse to engage those who wish to deny us that right?
The recent suicide bomber who had second thoughts when questionned said he was unsure about the virgins. He believed that he would get his guaranteed first class ticket to heaven but he had also been promised 100 virgins. He thought he would get perhaps 10 or so but not 100 and that was what he really wanted so he aborted his mission.
He wasn't really going anywhere with that sort of thinking was he? I would love to know where your train of though is taking you? How in the universe do you expect to make any progress with bringing about sensible legislation and enforcement if you refuse to engage those who wish to deny us that right?
so xylophone, do you practice your archery every Sunday? If not you are breaking the law, (ancient law states that every englishman has to practice archery every sunday to prepare for the defence of the realm). I'm not making this up, I have a friend who is into archery.
My point? The law can be and is in certain respects an @rse. It was illegal to buy a book on sunday (even the bible) but not a pornographic magazine. The supermarkets flagrently broke the law and it was reviewed and changed.
The same can be said about the canabis laws (which have recently changed and I suspect will change to even looser in the future).
The speed limits in this country date way back when cars traveling at 70mph took a seriously long time to stop. Even the bog standard shoping kart has better brakes. BUT the law hasn't changed its position on what the limits should be. Speed limits in a lot of places are stupidly low and more recently have been lowered and cameras put there (pure revenue generators) eg the A6.
I put it to you, that my judgement based upon my driving experience is better at judging what is a suitable speed for the conditions and traffic than a metal sign. I slow down to 15-20mph outside a school in a 30mph zone because thats sensible. On a motorway which has very few cars and good conditions I see no reason why I should be limited to 70mph.
Speed limits are a farse, dating back to when the ford anglia was the family car.
My point? The law can be and is in certain respects an @rse. It was illegal to buy a book on sunday (even the bible) but not a pornographic magazine. The supermarkets flagrently broke the law and it was reviewed and changed.
The same can be said about the canabis laws (which have recently changed and I suspect will change to even looser in the future).
The speed limits in this country date way back when cars traveling at 70mph took a seriously long time to stop. Even the bog standard shoping kart has better brakes. BUT the law hasn't changed its position on what the limits should be. Speed limits in a lot of places are stupidly low and more recently have been lowered and cameras put there (pure revenue generators) eg the A6.
I put it to you, that my judgement based upon my driving experience is better at judging what is a suitable speed for the conditions and traffic than a metal sign. I slow down to 15-20mph outside a school in a 30mph zone because thats sensible. On a motorway which has very few cars and good conditions I see no reason why I should be limited to 70mph.
Speed limits are a farse, dating back to when the ford anglia was the family car.
quote:
If the limits themselves were reasonable it would be far easier to get drivers to respect them. As it is our Police Forces are in a ridiculous position where the huge majority of the population DO NOT RESPECT THE LAW. This CANNOT BE RIGHT! Lets set more appropriate limits!
Hey, I may just buy some weed for a lil' smoke. Atleast that is LEGAL now !!!
Enough people break the law, the law gets changed. Unless it makes money...
I think this is where motoring law should be going. I can see the logic in people being pulled for dangerous driving doing 20 mph in some circs and not for doing 120 in others. It'll never happen, though: you have to trust the police for this, and the public AND the courts no longer do...
Christmas is still an illegal festivity, also. It was banned by the Puritans, under Oliver Cromwell, and the law was never repealed.
So, why are we not obeying the law of the land? Because, by popular consent, that law is an ass, and does not reflect the wishes of the population at large. This was, the last time I looked, a democracy, in which the law is defined by the common consent of the majority, and the politicians are brought to power on the strength of that common consent. It is the strength of democracy, that if the majority feel thay interests are not being served, or their wishes being ignored, to protest. That often means breaking the law, e.g. civil disorder may be threatened. However, the law itself may be the problem. So, does a government listen to the wishes of the majority, or does the population say that the government does not speak for them, and ignore the laws they feel are unjust? Should the government reach a consenus with the majority, or ignore their wishes and pursue an unrealistic and supressive agenda?
I suspect that, with traffic control, it is speed that is concentrated on, because it is so much simpler and cheaper, to police, than poor driving, and road changes are expensive.
Should I be criminalised because I refuse to obey unrealistic, out-dated laws? I do so, in common with the vast majority of people, at least on non-urban routes. There needs to be some differential law here - what is good for towns, is not necessarily good on trunk routes, which are designeed specifically for high speed travel, are they not?
So, why are we not obeying the law of the land? Because, by popular consent, that law is an ass, and does not reflect the wishes of the population at large. This was, the last time I looked, a democracy, in which the law is defined by the common consent of the majority, and the politicians are brought to power on the strength of that common consent. It is the strength of democracy, that if the majority feel thay interests are not being served, or their wishes being ignored, to protest. That often means breaking the law, e.g. civil disorder may be threatened. However, the law itself may be the problem. So, does a government listen to the wishes of the majority, or does the population say that the government does not speak for them, and ignore the laws they feel are unjust? Should the government reach a consenus with the majority, or ignore their wishes and pursue an unrealistic and supressive agenda?
I suspect that, with traffic control, it is speed that is concentrated on, because it is so much simpler and cheaper, to police, than poor driving, and road changes are expensive.
Should I be criminalised because I refuse to obey unrealistic, out-dated laws? I do so, in common with the vast majority of people, at least on non-urban routes. There needs to be some differential law here - what is good for towns, is not necessarily good on trunk routes, which are designeed specifically for high speed travel, are they not?
"Or introduce the rule that all owners of 4x4s must prove they can park it in just 1 supermaket parking place on a monthly basis, or forfeit their license."
How about just making them pass an off-road test.
Oh, and make them remove their bull bars whenerver they are out of a pastoral farming area!
How about just making them pass an off-road test.
Oh, and make them remove their bull bars whenerver they are out of a pastoral farming area!
Isn't it about time the government did a proper survey to prove that speed kills.
Using the data already in their possession.
First they could look at all the deaths and accidents that actually occur, and see how many are *caused* by speed (3%).
Then they could look at all those cars caught by speed toll cameras (always at accident blackspots, of course!).
And see how many of the photos showed a wreck with a corpse at the wheel.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm 0% ?
>> Edited by bogush on Tuesday 12th February 19:08
Using the data already in their possession.
First they could look at all the deaths and accidents that actually occur, and see how many are *caused* by speed (3%).
Then they could look at all those cars caught by speed toll cameras (always at accident blackspots, of course!).
And see how many of the photos showed a wreck with a corpse at the wheel.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm 0% ?
>> Edited by bogush on Tuesday 12th February 19:08
I have read Richard North's essay on Speed (www.abd.org.uk click on Unsafe at any Speed and have half an hour or so of time to read it.)
Very well thought out argument. However as it has many cogent ideas which would take flair not Blair to carry out It is about as likely to happen as I am to get to the moon.
Speed does not kill. What causes accidents on motorways is people not paying attention and agressive driving.
Being on the bumper of the car in front who is doing 70 mph in the fast lane and and hss a queue of traffic in front of him as far as he can see is dangerous and much more likely to cause accidents.
Being in a stream of traffic with at least a 2 second gap between cars is safe at 70 80 or 90 mph (in good conditions) when all the cars are going the same way.
Learning to ride and drive safely not slowly.
Very well thought out argument. However as it has many cogent ideas which would take flair not Blair to carry out It is about as likely to happen as I am to get to the moon.
Speed does not kill. What causes accidents on motorways is people not paying attention and agressive driving.
Being on the bumper of the car in front who is doing 70 mph in the fast lane and and hss a queue of traffic in front of him as far as he can see is dangerous and much more likely to cause accidents.
Being in a stream of traffic with at least a 2 second gap between cars is safe at 70 80 or 90 mph (in good conditions) when all the cars are going the same way.
Learning to ride and drive safely not slowly.
quote:
I disagree with you, however, on 2 points
1. You say IAM and Rospa couldn't care at what speed you're driving. When I qualified with IAM, you observed the law, and that will not have changed. Any organisation that professed to promote good and safe driving, yet permitted its drivers to ignore speed limits, would not be worth the name and would be a matter of grave public concern.
I suspect you are trying to say something different, which is that IAM and Rospa are realists in that they acknowledge that speed limits are most often honoured in the breach, and are the subject of fierce debate. If, however, your assessor when in control of your driving were to give you his permission to break the law, he would be aiding and abetting your criminal activity.
Gibson
When I took my IAM training my observer stated that all limits must be observed no matter what. He did go on to say that he exceeded the limit on occasions when it was safe to do so. He was a civilian.
When I took my RoSPA training my observer encouraged me to achieve safe progressive overtakes. When I queried whether this meant breaking the limit his response was "I have no problem with you exceeding the limit if the circumstances allow". He is a Class 1 Traffic Officer who specialises in Fatal Road Traffic Accidents.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff