We make the standards and we make the rules...

[Zeeky]

The complexity or otherwise of the opinion is not the point. The point is whose opinion is relevant?

Why seek others' approval of breaking one limit when you are happy to break another limit regardless of their opinion?

The answer to my question lies in the OP's attitude. So should the answer to the OP"s question.

[R_U_LOCAL]

Zeeky said:

The Op asks if he is a bad person for exceeding the 30 mph speed limit...

No I didn't.

To clarify, I already know I'm a bad person, so I don't need any clarification on that point from random internet people.

Zeeky said:

...but doesn't seem bothered about breaking the NSL. Is this really a question for general consideration? If the OP is happy to break the NSL he shouldn't need moral support in breaking the 30 mph limit.

Nope, still miles off. I'm definitely not looking for any moral support, thanks. I did say I was happy for you (the collective wisdom of random PH members) to be the judge of my actions, but I certainly don't need or desire any moral support.

If it helps, I did clarify the point of my post on the first page - perhaps you skipped over it, so I'll stick the quote in below:

Back on the first page Reg said:

I think there is some misunderstanding about the point of my original post. I'm not generally promoting breaking the law (to hell with the consequences), and neither am I attempting to portray myself as a driving god who can pick and choose what laws I do or don't comply with.

And for those who think I haven't considered the potential consequences of a tug and a ticket, please see this old post for my views on speed and speed limits:

http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...

The original post in this thread was a reaction to the myth that being an "advanced" driver requires rigid and unquestioning adherence to every single rule on every single occasion. That sometimes, on occasion, it may be considered appropriate to go outside the relevant legislation if you've assessed all the risks and kept them to a minimum.

The driver not moving out & crossing white lines for a pedestrian in the road is a perfect example. Rigid adherence to the white line rule resulted in a more dangerous situation than being a bit more flexible.

When you get 5 minutes, please read the above link. It should clarify my attitude towards speed and speed limits in general.

[R_U_LOCAL]

Actually, on re-reading the original post, I did write:

On double checking Reg realised that he had actually said:

The book will tell you that this is wrong, wrong, wrong and that I'm a bad, bad man. But am I? Really?

In fairness, it should be obvious that this was a rhetorical question.

But in case anyone is in any doubt, I am actually a very bad man.

Hope this clarifies things.

[Zeeky]

R_U_LOCAL said:

Zeeky said:

The Op asks if he is a bad person for exceeding the 30 mph speed limit...

No I didn't.

To clarify, I already know I'm a bad person, so I don't need any clarification on that point from random internet people.

Zeeky said:

...but doesn't seem bothered about breaking the NSL. Is this really a question for general consideration? If the OP is happy to break the NSL he shouldn't need moral support in breaking the 30 mph limit.

Nope, still miles off. I'm definitely not looking for any moral support, thanks. I did say I was happy for you (the collective wisdom of random PH members) to be the judge of my actions, but I certainly don't need or desire any moral support.

That is contradicted by this part of your first post.

R_U_LOCAL said:

...

So, if we go by "the book" (whichever book you choose to abide by), I'm choosing to break the speed limit. The book will tell you that this is wrong, wrong, wrong and that I'm a bad, bad man. But am I? Really?

In my mind I am weighing up the difference between the risks involved in momentarily exceeding a speed limit in a relatively hazard-free area, with the risks involved in overtaking slower vehicles on an NSL road.

What would you choose to do?

You are questioning a perceived 'badness' in choosing to break the 30 mph limit. You don't appear to need to do the same for choosing to break the NSL.


Your attitude to speed limits are, as far as I am concerned, a matter of personal choice (and consequences) that are independent of the rules of advanced driving and moral judgement.

If you are happy to break the NSL when you think it is safe, what is the point in trying to convince yourself you need to justify breaking a 30 mph limit by any other criterion than it is safe (other than the risk of being caught)?

[Johnnytheboy]

Zeeky said:

You are questioning a perceived 'badness' in choosing to break the 30 mph limit. You don't appear to need to do the same for choosing to break the NSL.


Your attitude to speed limits are, as far as I am concerned, a matter of personal choice (and consequences) that are independent of the rules of advanced driving and moral judgement.

If you are happy to break the NSL when you think it is safe, what is the point in trying to convince yourself you need to justify breaking a 30 mph limit by any other criterion than it is safe (other than the risk of being caught)?

Which is exactly what I was saying when I got bogged down in my choice of terminology.

[165gt]

Johnnytheboy said:

B. The flooring it at the limit sign thing is very 'advanced driving' but can come across as competitive/aggressive (if someone I've just followed through a 30 limit then hoofs it at the NSL sign I can't avoid the impression they are trying to tell me something. I'll never know, but I can't imagine they do it on an empty road).

Back when I did my driving test (90's) my instructor recommended accelerating firmly when the limit changed from 30 to NSL to acknowledge the change...(with the implication it would jeopardise my chances of passing if I merely accelerated gently).

Nowadays, I certainly don't stick rigidly to precisely 30, then floor it but I do gently accelerate about 100 yards from the NSL sign and then definitely accelerate firmly at the sign, whether there is following traffic or not.

[Blakewater]

I passed my test about twelve years ago. My instructor always told me to get up to the speed limit as quickly as possible (conditions allowing of course) and if I didn't get up to the limit where it was possible I was told off for holding up the traffic flow and not making progress as well as I should have.

He took me onto NSL roads, including some quite small and twisty ones, and I had to get up to 60mph and stay there. Whilst I was obviously never permitted to break speed limits, I had to get a shift on and go as fast as was legally possible.

[Jon1967x]

Blakewater said:

I passed my test about twelve years ago. My instructor always told me to get up to the speed limit as quickly as possible (conditions allowing of course) and if I didn't get up to the limit where it was possible I was told off for holding up the traffic flow and not making progress as well as I should have.

He took me onto NSL roads, including some quite small and twisty ones, and I had to get up to 60mph and stay there. Whilst I was obviously never permitted to break speed limits, I had to get a shift on and go as fast as was legally possible.

I think advice when learning needs to be taken in the context it was given. I learnt in a 1l micra a long time ago and acceleration was a 100% throttle job in the right gear and still hard work. If I did that today in any of my cars 30-60 would take about 2 seconds and I strongly suspect I'd be given subtly different instructions. Keeping up with the traffic flow is right but I imagine they didn't mean you had to drive at the NSL, more a case of pushing a learner driver to increase confidence and what was normal.

A fair bit of learner behaviour and advice on here would conflict without the driver giving commentary to explain. The lack of indicator or shoulder checks would have possibly been a failure by a learner in isolation.

[vonhosen]

There's a lot of guessing going on here.

You won't get a fault on your DSA test for not signalling where it wasn't needed. You'll get a fault for omitting a signal that was required, incorrectly or confusingly signalling (usually from not cancelling a signal that was required), or signalling at the wrong time (i.e. too late).

If you max out on every gear to get to the limit as quick as possible you will get a mark against you in the 'eco driving' box - which doesn't count for the fault totals at present.

[Rick101]

Blakewater said:

I passed my test about twelve years ago. My instructor always told me to get up to the speed limit as quickly as possible (conditions allowing of course) and if I didn't get up to the limit where it was possible I was told off for holding up the traffic flow and not making progress as well as I should have.

He took me onto NSL roads, including some quite small and twisty ones, and I had to get up to 60mph and stay there. Whilst I was obviously never permitted to break speed limits, I had to get a shift on and go as fast as was legally possible.

I've had this and think its ridiculous.

Its a kind of we're really safe because we follow the rules but but we push right to the limit because we're really good drivers.

Absolute tosh. Just drive to the conditions and adapt as necessary.

[Dr Jekyll]

Zeeky said:

You are questioning a perceived 'badness' in choosing to break the 30 mph limit. You don't appear to need to do the same for choosing to break the NSL.

There is a difference in that the imposition of a 30 limit should in theory be telling you something about the nature of the road. The fact that someone has decided (rightly or wrongly) that 31MPH is too fast is another piece of information to take into account. If a single carriageway has the NSL of 60 that doesn't mean that someone had decided that 61 is dangerous.

[SK425]

Dr Jekyll said:

There is a difference in that the imposition of a 30 limit should in theory be telling you something about the nature of the road. The fact that someone has decided (rightly or wrongly) that 31MPH is too fast is another piece of information to take into account. If a single carriageway has the NSL of 60 that doesn't mean that someone had decided that 61 is dangerous.

Could you clarify that. I don't get it. Why is the limit telling you something about the nature of the road when the limit's 30 but not when the limit's 60? Why does a 30 limit mean 31 is too fast but a 60 limit not mean 61 is too fast? That's the definition of a speed limit.

[Mr Grayson]

Yes, that's an example of people creating supplementary rules in their head. The NSL is like any other speed limit (with the possible exception of the 70, which allegedly was introduced to save fuel). It's a speed which is deemed safe for the conditions by the authorities, and which it is not legal to exceed, by 1 or 100 mph.

We had a long discussion about this kind of rule making on another forum recently. A motorist was pulled for doing 47 in a 30. He'd decided the road "looked like a 50 limit", although it had streetlamps, so he drove accordingly. Unfortunately, he was wrong. The authorities in this case had decided that 31 was unsafe.

[Dr Jekyll]

SK425 said:

Could you clarify that. I don't get it. Why is the limit telling you something about the nature of the road when the limit's 30 but not when the limit's 60? Why does a 30 limit mean 31 is too fast but a 60 limit not mean 61 is too fast? That's the definition of a speed limit.

Because 30 limits are set individually. Most country lanes have 60 limits simply because nobody has ever bothered to set an individual limit, so nobody has actually looked at the road and made a judgement that 61 is dangerous. Even if they did decide 61 was safe the limit would remain at 60 because there is no power to set a higher one.

[Zeeky]

Dr J makes a valid point as to why one might choose to comply with a 30 mph but not a NSL but my point is that this is a reasonable personal choice rather than an advanced driving rule generally. Although it does appear to be quite common.

[SK425]

Mr Grayson said:

Yes, that's an example of people creating supplementary rules in their head. The NSL is like any other speed limit (with the possible exception of the 70, which allegedly was introduced to save fuel). It's a speed which is deemed safe for the conditions by the authorities, and which it is not legal to exceed, by 1 or 100 mph.

Not sure what you mean by that bit. Just because the speed limit is x does not mean it is safe to drive as fast as x.

Mr Grayson said:

We had a long discussion about this kind of rule making on another forum recently. A motorist was pulled for doing 47 in a 30. He'd decided the road "looked like a 50 limit", although it had streetlamps, so he drove accordingly. Unfortunately, he was wrong. The authorities in this case had decided that 31 was unsafe.

I'm not sure that's what they'd decided. Much as some of the more hysterical voices you might hear would claim it, a speed limit of x does not mean that x+1 can never be safe. Speed limits are a far blunter tool than that and I would guess the authorities understand that. Opportunities to safely exceed speed limits do not only exist on NSL roads. People who have legal exemption from speed limits do not only exceed them in NSL. Evidence only of a driver exceeding a speed limit by 1 mph is not a guarantee of a conviction for dangerous driving.

I get the point that a stretch of NSL has not necessarily been assessed individually in the same way as a stretch with a lower limit. But speed limits are not set at the maximum possible speed that could be safe at the most favourable point on that stretch under the most favourable hazard conditions that could exist there and so I wouldn't understand someone who felt able to identify when it was and was not safe to exceed NSL but did not feel able to identify the same in other speed limits. Matching speed to hazards is matching speed to hazards and however good or bad you are at it, you're not going to suddenly get better just because you entered a region of NSL.

[Mr Grayson]

OK, in the first instance I should have said "It's the maximum speed considered safe by the authorities".

In the second I could have said lots of stuff about lowest common denominators etc. but the point is that at some moment in time, someone sat down and said to the rest of their committee "What speed limit can we set as a maximum without assessing every individual section of road, that will keep people safe" and they decided on 60. Therefore 61 is now illegal (and you're right, unlikely to result in prosecution). Or in this particular instance, 30 and 31, even if the road "looked like a 50".

Edited by Mr Grayson on Friday 30th May 11:40

[SK425]

Mr Grayson said:

OK, in the first instance I should have said "It's the maximum speed considered safe by the authorities".

I don't think that's what you should have said. See the beginning of the second part of my reply. Setting speed limits is a balance because you only get to set one number for the whole stretch of road whereas what is 'too fast' as determined by the prevailing hazard and traffic conditions varies from point to point along the road and varies over time. To conclude that the limit should be 30, I don't believe that the authorities need to feel that it can never be safe at any point, under an conditions, to be driving as fast as 31, or as fast as 40 for example. I don't think that's how setting speed limits is done.

[deltashad]

I was caught out a few times years ago when police used to patrol the roads accelerating from a quiet 30 into an Nsl.

It learned me a lesson, so now I get overtaken leaving these zones and have experienced what the op has posted.

I find it a pain in the ass, especially when the person who has overtaken you is one of those particularly bad drivers who trundle slowly through corners then gun it on a straight just as you're planning your overtake.

The roads are full of these people though. I won't change how I drive and they won't change either. I'll just think 'cock' until I come across the next idiot.

[Mr Grayson]

SK425 said:

I don't think that's what you should have said. See the beginning of the second part of my reply. Setting speed limits is a balance because you only get to set one number for the whole stretch of road whereas what is 'too fast' as determined by the prevailing hazard and traffic conditions varies from point to point along the road and varies over time. To conclude that the limit should be 30, I don't believe that the authorities need to feel that it can never be safe at any point, under an conditions, to be driving as fast as 31, or as fast as 40 for example. I don't think that's how setting speed limits is done.

OK so you want it both ways, which is fair enough

No, it's not the maximum speed under all conditions which may be safe, not to be exceeded (on grounds of safety) by so much as 1 mph. Neither is it a representative safe speed limit for some stretches of road which may allow much faster speeds safely. It's an arbitrary number on a stick. It was chosen, however, for a reason, which is that it represents a safe-ish speed for a good representative cross-section of urban roads. I know that. You know that. We're just trying to establish whether we believe we can safely ignore it. On the whole, the contributors to this thread don't ignore the 30 limit, although the OP has proposed a situation when he does so, in his own interest, as he believes, safely.

Will that do?