If you want to beat Specs
Discussion
Why on earth would ANYONE want to stick to an unrealistic speed limit? Cos the sign says so perhaps?
Er let me think about that for just a nanosecond, NO!
Didnt take me long did it....
Here's where i have a problem with "speed limits".
I put the effort into going out and taking the test to gain a license to drive.
I pay for the upkeep of the roads i drive on, i pay tax on every possible aspect of motoring, (but thats another gripe altogether).
Im trusted by the idiots in shitehall to use my own discretion when travelling along a foggy motorway, when i SHOULDNT be doing the limit.
But i could quite legally do just that! And not see where the 'kin hell im going.
Yet im not allowed to use that same discretion ABOVE a speed limit that is falsly implemented.
Ie; a 50 dropped to a 30.
So the question is begging to be asked, Why should i keep to a limit just cos a sign says so?
Speed, its the only way to get from A to B.
Er let me think about that for just a nanosecond, NO!
Didnt take me long did it....
Here's where i have a problem with "speed limits".
I put the effort into going out and taking the test to gain a license to drive.
I pay for the upkeep of the roads i drive on, i pay tax on every possible aspect of motoring, (but thats another gripe altogether).
Im trusted by the idiots in shitehall to use my own discretion when travelling along a foggy motorway, when i SHOULDNT be doing the limit.
But i could quite legally do just that! And not see where the 'kin hell im going.
Yet im not allowed to use that same discretion ABOVE a speed limit that is falsly implemented.
Ie; a 50 dropped to a 30.
So the question is begging to be asked, Why should i keep to a limit just cos a sign says so?
Speed, its the only way to get from A to B.
deltaf said:
Why on earth would ANYONE want to stick to an unrealistic speed limit? Cos the sign says so perhaps?
Er let me think about that for just a nanosecond, NO!
Didnt take me long did it....
Here's where i have a problem with "speed limits".
I put the effort into going out and taking the test to gain a license to drive.
I pay for the upkeep of the roads i drive on, i pay tax on every possible aspect of motoring, (but thats another gripe altogether).
Im trusted by the idiots in shitehall to use my own discretion when travelling along a foggy motorway, when i SHOULDNT be doing the limit.
But i could quite legally do just that! And not see where the 'kin hell im going.
Yet im not allowed to use that same discretion ABOVE a speed limit that is falsly implemented.
Ie; a 50 dropped to a 30.
So the question is begging to be asked, Why should i keep to a limit just cos a sign says so?
Speed, its the only way to get from A to B.
If traffic on a foggy M-way is travelling at 30mph and you tear down at 70+mph then one might consider that you may be liable for a charge of 'dangerous driving' or perhaps 'wreckless driving', stretching it a bit to include 'driving without due care and attention'.
Just because the legal limit is 70mph that does not make it safe to drive at that speed regardless of traffic and weather conditions.
People often make a case for high speeds by saying that if the road is clear and there is good vision etc etc then why not? Applying the same logic then if you cannot safely travel at a given speed then it is simply not safe to do so.
Ill try and address each of your points in order.
"If traffic on a foggy M-way is travelling at 30mph and you tear down at 70+mph then one might consider that you may be liable for a charge of 'dangerous driving' or perhaps 'wreckless driving', stretching it a bit to include 'driving without due care and attention'."
Exactly. And thats the point I was making. Discretion.
"Just because the legal limit is 70mph that does not make it safe to drive at that speed regardless of traffic and weather conditions."
I dont really see a great many other factors dictating a "safe" speed. If as you say its not safe to travel at 70 "regardless" of the conditions and traffice, then i assume you're saying that its never safe to travel at 70...ever?
"People often make a case for high speeds by saying that if the road is clear and there is good vision etc etc then why not? Applying the same logic then if you cannot safely travel at a given speed then it is simply not safe to do so"
A curious statement. Clear road, good vision, no other dangers present...why not indeed? I dont see any particular hazard of travelling that fast in the conditions above.
To address the last paragraph, what exactly would you determine to be a "safe" speed to travel at? Again the discretion argument applies. Discretion to go "to the limit" even if it IS a false one, but discretion all the same. Id simply like to know why im not allowed to use the same discretion and common sense to allow me to drive OVER the limit. Why shouldnt this be so?
Assuming safe conditions, good, well maintained vehicle and capable driver. Whats wrong with that?
"If traffic on a foggy M-way is travelling at 30mph and you tear down at 70+mph then one might consider that you may be liable for a charge of 'dangerous driving' or perhaps 'wreckless driving', stretching it a bit to include 'driving without due care and attention'."
Exactly. And thats the point I was making. Discretion.
"Just because the legal limit is 70mph that does not make it safe to drive at that speed regardless of traffic and weather conditions."
I dont really see a great many other factors dictating a "safe" speed. If as you say its not safe to travel at 70 "regardless" of the conditions and traffice, then i assume you're saying that its never safe to travel at 70...ever?
"People often make a case for high speeds by saying that if the road is clear and there is good vision etc etc then why not? Applying the same logic then if you cannot safely travel at a given speed then it is simply not safe to do so"
A curious statement. Clear road, good vision, no other dangers present...why not indeed? I dont see any particular hazard of travelling that fast in the conditions above.
To address the last paragraph, what exactly would you determine to be a "safe" speed to travel at? Again the discretion argument applies. Discretion to go "to the limit" even if it IS a false one, but discretion all the same. Id simply like to know why im not allowed to use the same discretion and common sense to allow me to drive OVER the limit. Why shouldnt this be so?
Assuming safe conditions, good, well maintained vehicle and capable driver. Whats wrong with that?
I dont really see a great many other factors dictating a "safe" speed. If as you say its not safe to travel at 70 "regardless" of the conditions and traffice, then i assume you're saying that its never safe to travel at 70...ever?
You detached my sentences so my point did not come across correctly. What I was trying to say was that whilst the legal limit may be 70, to drive at 70 may not be safe because of traffic or weather conditions. To then drive 'legally' at 70 might invite a charge on one of the offences I described.
A curious statement. Clear road, good vision, no other dangers present...why not indeed? I dont see any particular hazard of travelling that fast in the conditions above.
Why not? Because you will be breaking the speed limit. Nobody is above the law. You will be in the 'wrong' no matter how clear the road and weather conditions were.
The hazards I envisage at driving at plus 70 mph in what you might consider good road and weather conditions do not necessarily come from you the driver but the other road users. Let's face it, not that many other drivers will be looking out for a very high speed car and could quite easily fail to spot you from a glance in the mirror, especially if you are covering the ground so quickly. A failure by them to indicate and for them to pull out (because they seen no car in the mirror so feel no need to indicate) into your lane could be potentially disastrous.
Id simply like to know why im not allowed to use the same discretion and common sense to allow me to drive OVER the limit. Why shouldnt this be so?
If you can use your discretion beyond the law then the law becomes pointless.
It's there to give you a framework for adherence, it's a b*tch and is inflexible but go beyond it and intrinsically you are 'wrong'. Apply your discretion below the limit and there is no 'wrong' committed as every speed below the limit is ok.
Assuming safe conditions, good, well maintained vehicle and capable driver. Whats wrong with that?
The 'wrong' is that you are breaking the law. It sets a precedent for breaking the law. That's also a lot of assumptions. Who's opinion of 'well maintained' and 'capable' are you using? If you set the limit at the capability of the 'best' drivers then all those who fail to meet this capability and are driving beyond their limits are potentially more dangerous. The law never works like that and has to account for those who are not as good behind the wheel and those who think they are better than they are.
You detached my sentences so my point did not come across correctly. What I was trying to say was that whilst the legal limit may be 70, to drive at 70 may not be safe because of traffic or weather conditions. To then drive 'legally' at 70 might invite a charge on one of the offences I described.
A curious statement. Clear road, good vision, no other dangers present...why not indeed? I dont see any particular hazard of travelling that fast in the conditions above.
Why not? Because you will be breaking the speed limit. Nobody is above the law. You will be in the 'wrong' no matter how clear the road and weather conditions were.
The hazards I envisage at driving at plus 70 mph in what you might consider good road and weather conditions do not necessarily come from you the driver but the other road users. Let's face it, not that many other drivers will be looking out for a very high speed car and could quite easily fail to spot you from a glance in the mirror, especially if you are covering the ground so quickly. A failure by them to indicate and for them to pull out (because they seen no car in the mirror so feel no need to indicate) into your lane could be potentially disastrous.
Id simply like to know why im not allowed to use the same discretion and common sense to allow me to drive OVER the limit. Why shouldnt this be so?
If you can use your discretion beyond the law then the law becomes pointless.
It's there to give you a framework for adherence, it's a b*tch and is inflexible but go beyond it and intrinsically you are 'wrong'. Apply your discretion below the limit and there is no 'wrong' committed as every speed below the limit is ok.
Assuming safe conditions, good, well maintained vehicle and capable driver. Whats wrong with that?
The 'wrong' is that you are breaking the law. It sets a precedent for breaking the law. That's also a lot of assumptions. Who's opinion of 'well maintained' and 'capable' are you using? If you set the limit at the capability of the 'best' drivers then all those who fail to meet this capability and are driving beyond their limits are potentially more dangerous. The law never works like that and has to account for those who are not as good behind the wheel and those who think they are better than they are.
Nice one, gents!edc said:
Apply your discretion below the limit and there is no 'wrong' committed as every speed below the limit is ok.
Sorry there's an old unrepented law stating a MINIMUM of 30MPH on a MOTORWAY - try to keep to that one on a Friday niht clockwise M25 towards Watford !
You could try this one too : Ride your horse to work and your employer MUST provide hay and stabling
Another point re the "foggy motorway" situation....
Say you're hurtling along at 70mph in fog, when everyone else is doing 50mph - dangerous driving for sure, but unless you're in a variable speed limit section, the cameras can't pick up dangerous or reckless driving, they're just speed orientated. So, you drive like an arse, cause a huge pile up, and the cameras have achieved NOTHING. Now, stick a motorway patrol car out there, pull you over, give you a talking to and maybe a ticket....job done, safety preserved. But no, patrol cars can't do 10 people a second, or whatever the digital cameras do these days....
Say you're hurtling along at 70mph in fog, when everyone else is doing 50mph - dangerous driving for sure, but unless you're in a variable speed limit section, the cameras can't pick up dangerous or reckless driving, they're just speed orientated. So, you drive like an arse, cause a huge pile up, and the cameras have achieved NOTHING. Now, stick a motorway patrol car out there, pull you over, give you a talking to and maybe a ticket....job done, safety preserved. But no, patrol cars can't do 10 people a second, or whatever the digital cameras do these days....
5ltr-chim said:
Apply your discretion below the limit and there is no 'wrong' committed as every speed below the limit is ok.
Sorry there's an old unrepented law stating a MINIMUM of 30MPH on a MOTORWAY - try to keep to that one on a Friday niht clockwise M25 towards Watford !
You could try this one too : Ride your horse to work and your employer MUST provide hay and stabling
Have to disagree here. There is NO minimum speed limit on an Mway.
Prove me wrong and win a pint ashes said:
Try sticking to the speed limit!
Had to drive down the Stocksbridge bypass last night 11:30pm, empty road stuck at 60mph. I nearly nodded off. Nightmare!
If they lower the limit ( they are talking about it as the cameras have had no effect) I shall find another route.
Drop on or off bypass at Wortley and avoid one of the cameras, but keep an eye out for the unmarkeds
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff