Why don't you break the speed limit?

[Einion Yrth]

As a corollary to the other thread, given that most of the pro-limit side of the debate accept that exceeding a speed limit is not a priori necessarily dangerous, why - apart from fear of prosecution - do you not exceed speed limits.

NB. The title is not clear enough; this is for the pro-limit 'I would never exceed a speed limit' faction. Obviously only a complete loon would always exceed a limit.

Edited by Einion Yrth on Monday 11th June 14:40

[dougc]

When I deem it not safe to travel at the arbitrary number painted on a sign.

[streaky]

Because, WHEN, I perceive there to be danger to myself or others in so doing - Streaky

[imbecile]

Apart from the obvious "not safe" reason, generally it's for fuel economy or trying to do a "perfect" drive.

[NobleGuy]

Potential danger, and more recently since turning 30, being in a bit less of a rush to get everywhere.

[Don]

Indeed. I do not break the speed limit when

• It is clear to me that to do so would be dangerous. Usually this is because the safe speed is well below the speed limit.

• It is unclear to me that to do so would be completely safe. Perhaps because I do not know the road. I prefer to err on the side of caution.

• It is unclear to me that to do so will not result in my getting caught and needing to pay £60 and be "awarded" "points".

Every few years or so I seem to cak up the last one...

The above is not an admission of anything. Clearly I never break the speed limit except by mistake and when that happens I usually get caught by the North Wales police and am punished for my lack of foresight...

[jacko lah]

There is a Road Between My House and the Motorway on which it would be dangerous to travel at the posted NSL. Not a B Road even, it has some blind sweeping bends with 20 foot deep ditches. Every November with the first frost there is a car or van parked in said ditch. Most Survive. There are short straight where in the dry it is possible to exceed the limit, and in 3 miles there is one straight that is JUST long enough to overtake. I love that road because it is proves possible to NOt travel at the speed limit and still be going too fast. And survival depends on using your brain. Should they do a "Norfolk" and turn it to a 30 limit I can see more people crashing thinking that 30 is safe. In the rain it's not on a couple of the bend due to DEEP puddles that form.

[gonzales]

Because I have seen the damage that having an 8 year old child bouncing off your bonnet can cause, and this was under 20mph.

[Einion Yrth]

gonzales said:

Because I have seen the damage that having an 8 year old child bouncing off your bonnet can cause, and this was under 20mph.

And therefore hardly an advertisement for rigid observance of speed limits - 30mph would have been too fast presumably (unless the child fell from the skies).
Plus that sort of emotional blackmail is very poor debating technique - please read my addendum to the original topic title and consider that.

[Don]

gonzales said:

Because I have seen the damage that having an 8 year old child bouncing off your bonnet can cause, and this was under 20mph.

[sickmode]Yeah. I guess that kind of impact can leave a huge dent.[/sickmode]

[normal mode]
Blimey! Were you driving? Nasty thing to need to recover from - both the poor kid and the psychological problems for the driver.

I was run over on a pedestrian crossing at 30mph and it seriously hurts...

Travelling at under 20mph the stopping distance is just a few feet. How the hell did it happen in the first place? Kid on bike? Just whoosh straight out into the road or something? (Seen that happen - dished out bollocking and explanation about how not to die...)

Oh...and there is a world of difference between breaking the speed limit and driving without due care in an area that is hazard rich and kids can reasonably be expected to be out and about unaccompanied. Seen any kids playing on the motorway recently?
[/normal]

[gonzales]

Einion Yrth said:

gonzales said:

Because I have seen the damage that having an 8 year old child bouncing off your bonnet can cause, and this was under 20mph.

And therefore hardly an advertisement for rigid observance of speed limits - 30mph would have been too fast presumably (unless the child fell from the skies).
Plus that sort of emotional blackmail is very poor debating technique - please read my addendum to the original topic title and consider that.

Not doing emotional blackmail. The title of the thread is why don't you break the speed limit, not why do you stick rigidly to the limit.

I was the driver in question travelling along a 30mph road in good conditions when a child was chased out into the road by a group of much larger boys weilding golf clubs. Pretty cruddy thing to happen to both the boy and the car. As it was the boy only suffered a cut ear and my car was drivable. The police attribute this to my lack of speed at the time, if I was doing 30 (the speed limit) both would have been much worse off.

As a consequence of this accident I do travel at a speed I feel is safe in built up areas whether it is below the speed limit or not.

[Einion Yrth]

gonzales said:

As a consequence of this accident I do travel at a speed I feel is safe in built up areas whether it is below the speed limit or not.

Which is the correct answer, and entirely the point I was attempting to get at with my original, rather poorly worded, question. What purpose do arbitrary limits actually serve when, as in your case, they may easily be too fast for the conditions, and equally frequently, unnecessarily slow for the conditions; as far as I can see the only thing they can almost never be is the maximum safe speed for the road.

[7db]

1. Self-discipline in red-ring limits.
2. Expectation of other road users at junctions and other points of conflict.
3. Detection and enforcement.

[Einion Yrth]

7db said:

1. Self-discipline in red-ring limits.

The law is the law? Inadequate for many, as a reason.

7db said:

2. Expectation of other road users at junctions and other points of conflict.

Slowing down for potentially hazard rich environments is always a good idea, I'm not sure how relevant that is to strict compliance with arbitrary limits though.

7db said:

3. Detection and enforcement.

I did specifically exclude this one in the original question, since I recognise it as being a very sensible and pragmatic answer.

[7db]

Einion Yrth said:

7db said:

1. Self-discipline in red-ring limits.

The law is the law? Inadequate for many, as a reason.

For many, yes, but I don't aspire to drive like many people. I see little benefit in exceeding the red ring limits in terms of progress, and I see a disadvantage in terms of enforcement. Besides, I'd feel a total knob for losing my licence doing 50 in a 30 when I could keep it doing 90 in an NSL.

Einion Yrth said:

7db said:

2. Expectation of other road users at junctions and other points of conflict.

Slowing down for potentially hazard rich environments is always a good idea, I'm not sure how relevant that is to strict compliance with arbitrary limits though.

This is more than just slowing at a hazard, it's about the rightful expectations of other road users. It isn't reasonable to expect other people to judge your approach speed correctly at a junction if you are coming in at twice the posted limit. In this instance the arbitrary number on a stick is a shared piece of information between you and the other driver, so a useful reference point.

Einion Yrth said:

7db said:

3. Detection and enforcement.

I did specifically exclude this one in the original question, since I recognise it as being a very sensible and pragmatic answer.

I'm sorry, I include it for completeness, as it's an important part of the choice.

[Flat in Fifth]

Well ever since year blob I have respected red ring limits for very much the reasons outlined by 7db.

Others expectations, licence preservation (increasingly), and NSL increasingly gets so treated mainly for the same reasons, ie activities of nobs in vans.

Also because, and please bear with me on this one, it was drummed into me by elder bro (class 1) that it costs money to impose a limit so councils don't do it for fun. Therefore it is somewhat arrogant to drive along a road that folks like my bro et al had spent time considering what was a suitable limit having due regard for the hazards, and then for me, based on observations done in real time, to say, well you're a load of nobbers got that wrong didn't you, I'll go along here how I want.

Now that was a long time ago and sadly due to the PC lentilist brigade that final argument has been emasculated.

Finally, I am subject to regular check drives and I don't altogether trust myself to drive like an angel on test day and then drive like I stole it on other days.

Plus the licence peservation bit to mention it again, yes I know you excluded it but that is an unfair clause in the terms & conditions.

It's the same as saying, there's lots of paint and signs so it MUST be a real hootananny of a hazard. Still a useful pointer but likewise becoming devalued.

[Einion Yrth]

7db said:

Einion Yrth said:

7db said:

1. Self-discipline in red-ring limits.

The law is the law? Inadequate for many, as a reason.

For many, yes, but I don't aspire to drive like many people. I see little benefit in exceeding the red ring limits in terms of progress, and I see a disadvantage in terms of enforcement. Besides, I'd feel a total knob for losing my licence doing 50 in a 30 when I could keep it doing 90 in an NSL.

Sorry, I wasn't absolutely sure you were excluding NSL from this category.
We are not in too much disagreement here then.

7db said:

Einion Yrth said:

7db said:

2. Expectation of other road users at junctions and other points of conflict.

Slowing down for potentially hazard rich environments is always a good idea, I'm not sure how relevant that is to strict compliance with arbitrary limits though.

This is more than just slowing at a hazard, it's about the rightful expectations of other road users. It isn't reasonable to expect other people to judge your approach speed correctly at a junction if you are coming in at twice the posted limit. In this instance the arbitrary number on a stick is a shared piece of information between you and the other driver, so a useful reference point.

Don't think I'd ever approach a junction at double the limit. I tend to approach at a speed where I'll be able to stop if someone pulls out on me, at least until I've established eye contact with the other driver.

7db said:

Einion Yrth said:

7db said:

3. Detection and enforcement.

I did specifically exclude this one in the original question, since I recognise it as being a very sensible and pragmatic answer.

I'm sorry, I include it for completeness, as it's an important part of the choice.

Indeed, no problem.

[herewego]

Einion Yrth said:

gonzales said:

As a consequence of this accident I do travel at a speed I feel is safe in built up areas whether it is below the speed limit or not.

Which is the correct answer, and entirely the point I was attempting to get at with my original, rather poorly worded, question. What purpose do arbitrary limits actually serve when, as in your case, they may easily be too fast for the conditions, and equally frequently, unnecessarily slow for the conditions; as far as I can see the only thing they can almost never be is the maximum safe speed for the road.

Are they defined somewhere as the maximum safe speed for the road? I thought they were just speed limits.

[Lostusernamedamn]

My travelling speed is what I consider to be safe at all times; it varies with my mood as well as of course outside factors. I see the speed limit as irrelevant because of the sheer number of these factors and whether or not I am breaking it is down to chance.

[herewego]

Einion Yrth said:

7db said:

1. Self-discipline in red-ring limits.

The law is the law? Inadequate for many, as a reason.

7db said:

2. Expectation of other road users at junctions and other points of conflict.

Slowing down for potentially hazard rich environments is always a good idea, I'm not sure how relevant that is to strict compliance with arbitrary limits though.

But the limits are not arbitrary, they are considered. One limit for here, another for there according to the situation.