How much respect do you have for speed limits?

How much respect do you have for speed limits?

Author
Discussion

V8RX7

27,027 posts

265 months

Saturday 31st May 2014
quotequote all
None - they are just a random number on sign that are impossible to justify.

I bear in mind the penalty for exceeding them and try to keep out of ban territory.

However with many NSLs now being 50 and 40 that is frequently impossible to do.




Pit Pony

8,944 posts

123 months

Saturday 31st May 2014
quotequote all
Monkeylegend said:
Mr SFJ said:
and lets be honest, 99% of people do 80-100 on the motorway anyway so it's just a technicality now.
I think you will find that is not actually true.
Given an completely empty motorway, with light traffic, (the M6 Toll?) I find 20% are doing 80 to 95, 1% 95 to 110, 15% 70 to 80, and the rest say 54% are doing 60 to 70.

Some of those doing 65 THINK they are doing 70, and some of those doing 70 think they are doing 75.

Most of the time they are in a jam going 3 mph.

LimaDelta

6,627 posts

220 months

Saturday 31st May 2014
quotequote all
Certainly in town I stick to prescribed limits, especially 30s/20s. However on a dry, deserted, well-sighted A or B road... to paraphrase a tree-based philosophical question, If you break the speed limit, and nobody sees it, is it against the law?

TurboHatchback

Original Poster:

4,168 posts

155 months

Saturday 31st May 2014
quotequote all
It's all very well saying that you respect 30 limits because they are sensible but they are still only sensible in the right place. In an actual urban environment then yes 30 is sensible but why is this stretch 30 for example?:

http://goo.gl/maps/Lvtak

It goes back to the point that when all 30s were in places that needed them, when you came across one you always slowed down and stuck to the limit as you knew it would be sensible and well considered. When some of them are stupid and pointless it takes away that implicit trust in their validity and makes you question all 30 limits (which is bad as most of them are sensible).

Matthen

1,305 posts

153 months

Saturday 31st May 2014
quotequote all
In the car? Depends what mood i'm in. In the company Vans, I stick to them religiously - bad P/R and all that.

50s are usually treated with disdain however.

trashbat

6,007 posts

155 months

Saturday 31st May 2014
quotequote all
TurboHatchback said:
It's all very well saying that you respect 30 limits because they are sensible but they are still only sensible in the right place. In an actual urban environment then yes 30 is sensible but why is this stretch 30 for example?:

http://goo.gl/maps/Lvtak
Probably on the basis that people don't slow down at the 30mph sign, but some way after it, hence why there are buffers and margins. You don't have to go back very far to find the NSL zone, or forwards very far to find the residential area, and there's pavements either side. I agree that that particular stretch is more like a 40 or 50 but in context it makes more sense. So, although it's not perfect, I can respect that.

ben5732

763 posts

158 months

Saturday 31st May 2014
quotequote all
20/30/40 I stick to them religiously rest I use common sense without going stupid either.

GetCarter

29,448 posts

281 months

Saturday 31st May 2014
quotequote all
Kinda' different where I live. I will break them (BIG time) when I know I won't see a car or person for 50 miles, on roads with no houses, junctions and zero traffic etc, and I'll drive MUCH slower than the 30 mph limit in a village when I know people are on holiday and will be playing footie in the road.

To me it's common sense. 30mph can be far too fast. 60 is sometimes far too slow.

Edited by GetCarter on Saturday 31st May 14:32

Johnnytheboy

24,498 posts

188 months

Saturday 31st May 2014
quotequote all
TurboHatchback said:
It's all very well saying that you respect 30 limits because they are sensible but they are still only sensible in the right place. In an actual urban environment then yes 30 is sensible but why is this stretch 30 for example?:

http://goo.gl/maps/Lvtak

It goes back to the point that when all 30s were in places that needed them, when you came across one you always slowed down and stuck to the limit as you knew it would be sensible and well considered. When some of them are stupid and pointless it takes away that implicit trust in their validity and makes you question all 30 limits (which is bad as most of them are sensible).
Exactly.

In Somerset we now have lengthy 30 limits for settlements so small they don't even warrant place names.

My usual sign of a wildly inappropriate 30 limit is the supplementary "it's 30 for a reason" sign, which almost by definition means "it's 30 because one resident kept moaning".

XJ Flyer

5,526 posts

132 months

Saturday 31st May 2014
quotequote all
Johnnytheboy said:
TurboHatchback said:
It's all very well saying that you respect 30 limits because they are sensible but they are still only sensible in the right place. In an actual urban environment then yes 30 is sensible but why is this stretch 30 for example?:

http://goo.gl/maps/Lvtak

It goes back to the point that when all 30s were in places that needed them, when you came across one you always slowed down and stuck to the limit as you knew it would be sensible and well considered. When some of them are stupid and pointless it takes away that implicit trust in their validity and makes you question all 30 limits (which is bad as most of them are sensible).
Exactly.

In Somerset we now have lengthy 30 limits for settlements so small they don't even warrant place names.

My usual sign of a wildly inappropriate 30 limit is the supplementary "it's 30 for a reason" sign, which almost by definition means "it's 30 because one resident kept moaning".
It's fair to say that generally where it was NSL previously there's no reason why it shouldn't be NSL now.The issue of speed limit reductions,which have been and are increasingly being applied,in many different types of places,where there can be no safety argument,seems to be all about a politically driven policy,based on green party thinking,of making car use as unattractive as possible and criminalising as many drivers as possible in the process to increase revenues.

philmots

4,635 posts

262 months

Saturday 31st May 2014
quotequote all
When driving during the day I'm just another road user, I have enormous respect for the limits as I drive for work and can't be without license..

I'll sit in lines of traffic, nobody would guess I was a keen driver..

Want a blast? Get up and get out the house at 4am (you've got while 5 on a weekday and 6-7 on a weekend) to get out, enjoy car free roads, what cars there are it's easy to pass. Back home for the rest of the day..

Only way these days IMO.

Rich_W

12,548 posts

214 months

Sunday 1st June 2014
quotequote all
Not much. Since there's more to driving than an immobile, unchanging sign. Yet so many people think it's the sign that dictates everything.

I'll drive to a equation that includes:

Actual speed limit (V)
Speed Camera/Police activity (w)
What the conditions are (x)
How much of a hurry I'm in (y)
and how much other traffic there is (z)

Someone like

x + y - z


v (w)

biggrin

XJ Flyer

5,526 posts

132 months

Sunday 1st June 2014
quotequote all
Rich_W said:
Not much. Since there's more to driving than an immobile, unchanging sign. Yet so many people think it's the sign that dictates everything.

I'll drive to a equation that includes:

Actual speed limit (V)
Speed Camera/Police activity (w)
What the conditions are (x)
How much of a hurry I'm in (y)
and how much other traffic there is (z)

Someone like

x + y - z


v (w)

biggrin
The problem is that w is always the overriding,ever present,limiting factor in a world of long range laser traps that are guaranteed to get you at some point before you've seen them and unmarked police cars etc.

IE x,y and z are all irrelevant because of w.

Pan Pan

1,116 posts

129 months

Monday 2nd June 2014
quotequote all
As posted elsewhere, anyone who believes that driving at, or within a posted speed limit makes them (A) safe, and (B) a safe driver, is a fool, fooling themselves. A vehicle can kill or injure a person, especially a child at 1 mph, let alone 20 mph.
The only truly safe speed speed for any motorized transport, when it is mixed with other non motorized road users is 0 mph.
We must remember there is a small, but vocal group of individuals in societies for whom motorized transport (especially cars) is spawn of the devil, and they will use any measures they can, including driving down speed limits, to make motorized transport (except perhaps buses) so slow as to be a non viable activity.
As a society we realize that if we wish to enjoy the benefits that using motorized transport brings
there will (like every thing else in life) be a price to pay. In a crowded country like the UK which mixes motorized and non motorized road users in the cramped congested space we know as roads, there will always be a number of deaths and injuries every single day. The question is how low, can we `realistically' bring these figures down to? and when does reducing speeds, start to make the use of motorized transport non viable.
The irony is that since the dawn of time, humans have been trying to go faster, and faster. This seems to be an inbuilt trait for `most' humans.

XJ Flyer

5,526 posts

132 months

Monday 2nd June 2014
quotequote all
Pan Pan said:
As posted elsewhere, anyone who believes that driving at, or within a posted speed limit makes them (A) safe, and (B) a safe driver, is a fool, fooling themselves. A vehicle can kill or injure a person, especially a child at 1 mph, let alone 20 mph.
The only truly safe speed speed for any motorized transport, when it is mixed with other non motorized road users is 0 mph.
We must remember there is a small, but vocal group of individuals in societies for whom motorized transport (especially cars) is spawn of the devil, and they will use any measures they can, including driving down speed limits, to make motorized transport (except perhaps buses) so slow as to be a non viable activity.
As a society we realize that if we wish to enjoy the benefits that using motorized transport brings
there will (like every thing else in life) be a price to pay. In a crowded country like the UK which mixes motorized and non motorized road users in the cramped congested space we know as roads, there will always be a number of deaths and injuries every single day. The question is how low, can we `realistically' bring these figures down to? and when does reducing speeds, start to make the use of motorized transport non viable.
The irony is that since the dawn of time, humans have been trying to go faster, and faster. This seems to be an inbuilt trait for `most' humans.
The difference is that going by the rule of being able to stop within the distance that you can see and anticipate likely to remain to be clear in built up areas obviously needs a much lower speed regime than out of town open roads and motorways.The problem is when the speed campaigners try to use the issue of the former to justify excessive speed enforcement of the latter.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

32,880 posts

219 months

Monday 2nd June 2014
quotequote all
Stopping in the distance you see to be clear is not an absolute. There will be occasions where it is not practical, or where other events that cannot be reasonably foreseen occur (such as a vehicle on the wrong side of the road coming around a corner to hit you, or a stationary vehicle across your side of the road).

It is a good piece of advice, but not absolute proof you have committed an offence or that you are liable in the event of damage and/or injury.

trashbat

6,007 posts

155 months

Monday 2nd June 2014
quotequote all
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz said:
Stopping in the distance you see to be clear is not an absolute. There will be occasions where it is not practical, or where other events that cannot be reasonably foreseen occur (such as a vehicle on the wrong side of the road coming around a corner to hit you
Single track roads aside, this is not a breach of the rule any more than someone deliberately driving into your car is.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz said:
or a stationary vehicle across your side of the road)
but this is, and it's your carelessness if you drive into such a vehicle.

sday12

5,053 posts

213 months

Monday 2nd June 2014
quotequote all
Never stuck to any of them.
Probably why the magistrate decided I may want to take a break.

Some are stupid, something is required, however you can't legislate away risk.


CBR JGWRR

6,548 posts

151 months

Monday 2nd June 2014
quotequote all
I go at a speed I think is suitable for the conditions. Sometimes that is as far above the speed limit as my vehicle will go, other times it is eco-bimbling, and others barely walking pace. Most of the time its the first option, but that is because of my choice of vehicles more than anything.


Way I see it, if you get caught speeding it is a sign your observations aren't good enough.



sday12

5,053 posts

213 months

Monday 2nd June 2014
quotequote all
Unless they hide in slip roads......