A question of good progress

[TripleS]

Big Fat F'er said:

TripleS said:

I do feel that BFF's approach is not going to help get the youngsters on board, and that does need doing I think

My 'approach' is to be very clear about what is expected. Anyone joining an organisation like the IAM (for example purposes only) should know what is expected of them. During the training it is made very clear. Advanced Drivers are expected to drive within the limits at all times, including overtaking.

That's fine, I agree it is best to be clear about things so far as possible.

Big Fat F'er said:

Tell you what. So that you don't think it's a personal attack on you, do me a favour. Publish the bits where the Advanced Institutions and the Police are recommending that you can break the limits.

You can't. Because they don't do it. They absolutely 100% state that you shouldn't break the limit.

I'm not taking anything as a personal attack, so don't worry about that, but your two paragraphs there do not make sense. First you ask me to publish material produced by others, and then you immediately say I can't do it because the others never produced it, which is probably right, so that's not got us far.

Big Fat F'er said:

You have decided it is not right for you, and you have decided to break the limits if you want to. So, we are not saying it makes you bad, or evil, or necessarily unsafe, or that you can't drive, or that you don't care, or that you have no experience, or that you have no skill. It is just that if you do it, it is not Advanced, as defined by the Advanced Institutions and Police. What is wrong with that approach.

Brian* - unlike most PH members I can well recall the days when we had no NSL whatsoever, and I drove for several years in that era, before the rules changed for the worse. Even so, as far as the law is concerned I have no excuse, no question about that. Ideally the current rules should be obeyed, but having lived in pre-NSL days and enjoyed a wholly different regime of motoring, it does colour one's feelings about these things. I'm assuming that you are a good deal younger than me and you will not have lived through that better era of motoring, and I just think this leaves the two of us with fundamentally different attitudes.

* temporary assumption on my part. Please adjust as appropriate.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

[Philbes]

GreenV8S said:

Big Fat F'er said:

when I said "Now go out for a drive, chill out, and realise there are more important things in life than our differences" for some reason you think that is 'telling' you what to do.

Well it does rather look to me as if you are 'telling' somebody to go out for a drive etc there.

In terms of blinkered or entrenched views, the main thing that disappoints me about this thread is not the patronising attitudes from some people or the rudeness from others, it is that none of the 'obey the speed limit at all times' proponents have put forward any arguments to support their position. I've explained why I think you're wrong, and all you (collectively) have done in return is reiterate your opinions and dodge the question of why. I'm left to conclude that you're all obeying the law for no better reason than that it is there, and that isn't a good enough reason for me to support it.

Law-abiding citizens who don't wish to pay the penalty for breaking the law? Why does that need justifing?

[TripleS]

Big Fat F'er said:

TripleS said:

Big Fat F'er said:

Let's face it, despite various attempts to change you, I think it's fair to say you haven't changed your stance. Neither has TripleS, or Green, etc. Thats why the debates go on. We all stick to what we believe in. I'm surprised you think that's blinkered.

As a matter of fact I don't seek to change people - well certainly not directly by attempting to demolish their viewpoints. I'm quite happy to offer my viewpoint and I just hope it will remain on the table to be picked up by whoever sees any merit in it. If they then adjust their own attitude in their own good time as a result of that, and go on to benefit from it - well that splendid.

As I may have said before, I'm not a believer in sudden major alterations, revolutionary changes etc. IMHO minor adjustments made on a steady logical basis will suit most people best and yield good solid progress, and it should maintain a stable situation too - which is also important.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

You know this was said in response to the comment about being blinkered. For some reason people often use that argument about someone else but not about themselves. I was simply pointing out that as far as I'm aware, your position on speeding hasn't changed. Neither has mine. Neither has Greens. So in other words, we still think what we originally thought. So you can't really pick out one person and say he is blinkered.

I'm not picking out one person, and it wasn't me that described anybody as being blinkered. All I'm doing is offering opinions - which I adjust from time to time in the light of convincing points made by others.

Best wishes all,
Dave - still cool.

[Observer2]

StressedDave said:

Now the laws on speeding are perpetually being flouted by the general populace, irrespective of their 'adavanced' status as drivers. This generally means one of two things: either the laws are wrong (and thus should be changed) or the populace are so ill-educated and informed that they fail to see the need to adhere to them. I'd be inclined to think its the latter.

Or ... the laws on speeding were framed at a time when remote/automated detection and enforcement of speeding was technologically impossible. Consequently, the real boundary between lawful and unlawful acts was established by the ability of the authorities to detect and enforce, not by the speed limit itself. In other words, the unlawful (criminal) behaviour lies not in exceeding the speed limit per se, but in exceeding it so frequently or flagrantly that the excess speed is detected and the law enforced.

[StressedDave]

Philbes said:

But how does their accident rate when driving above the speed limit compare with their accident rate when driving within the speed limits? If an Advanced Driver has the ability to consider when breaking the limits is safe, then there should be no difference.

I doubt there are any real numbers on that, but a gut feeling (based on clearing up after them for a few years) would be that there tend to be more minor incidents when not on a run (because they tend to switch off and not concentrate on the driving task) than occur on a run.

The Swedish Police one year sent round a memo stating that the next advanced training session would take place in the Police car park because that's where statistically the majority of their knocks take place.

[TripleS]

Big Fat F'er said:

Fat Audi 80 said:

I don't care about others.... .

Don't say that, even in jest, you never know who's reading this.

Very good Brian. Yes I read that bit. Humorous, well done - I like it.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

[Big Fat F'er]

Fat Audi 80 said:

Big Fat F'er said:

Fat Audi 80 said:

I don't care about others.... .

Don't say that, even in jest, you never know who's reading this.

P1$$ off, PATRONISING TW@T

There, you got a rise out me you Troll

Cheers,

Steve

(BTW consider yourself special, I don't normally do that on PH...)

Eh!!! In an earlier post I said exactly what you've said above (i.e. i don't care about others) and it was (inadvertently) taken the wrong way. Someone misunderstood me, so I explained that it was a misunderstanding, and I've used the above to emphasise it. As a joke. which I think the other party involved with it understood. What on earth is up with you guys. You cannot be serious that you didn't understand the above, or that you've taken offence. No way. You are starting to come across like a little spoilt boy.

[StressedDave]

Observer2 said:

Or ... the laws on speeding were framed at a time when remote/automated detection and enforcement of speeding was technologically impossible. Consequently, the real boundary between lawful and unlawful acts was established by the ability of the authorities to detect and enforce, not by the speed limit itself. In other words, the unlawful (criminal) behaviour lies not in exceeding the speed limit per se, but in exceeding it so frequently or flagrantly that the excess speed is detected and the law enforced.

Road Safety used to be considered to have three branches: Education, Engineering and Enforcement. By giving Police Officers discretion and leeway they could often achieve with Education what Enforcement after the fact (which is broadly what happens today with remote detection) clearly does not do. Motorists are unlikely to change their habits when the driving in question was several days prior, whereas pulling them over to the side of the road and issuing a stern bking followed by a ticket/summons if appropriate would normally do the job.

I do like the comment about flagrancy. It's a bit like that dodgy philosophical conundrum - if a tree falls in the woods with no-one to hear, does it make a noise? If you are going to speed you should do so in a manner which is not going to raise eyebrows and indicate to the general populace that you are indeed a scofflaw.

Edited by StressedDave on Friday 16th June 15:53

[Big Fat F'er]

GreenV8S said:

Big Fat F'er said:

when I said "Now go out for a drive, chill out, and realise there are more important things in life than our differences" for some reason you think that is 'telling' you what to do.

Well it does rather look to me as if you are 'telling' somebody to go out for a drive etc there.

Why on earth would I genuinely tell someone to go out for a drive? This is a website devoted to driving, so many folk say go do this, or go do that....it's normal conversation. Guys, take a step back and have a look, you are seriously over reacting.

GreenV8S said:

In terms of blinkered or entrenched views, the main thing that disappoints me about this thread is not the patronising attitudes from some people or the rudeness from others, it is that none of the 'obey the speed limit at all times' proponents have put forward any arguments to support their position. I've explained why I think you're wrong, and all you (collectively) have done in return is reiterate your opinions and dodge the question of why. I'm left to conclude that you're all obeying the law for no better reason than that it is there, and that isn't a good enough reason for me to support it.

We have put forward an argument. You happen to disagree with it, and that is fine. The argument is that you should not break the speed limit because:
1) It is the Law.
2) Advanced Institutions say when you accept membership, you accept the rules. One of the rules is don't break the limit.

That is the argument. It will always be strongly contested, as it relies solely on principles. It may not be reason enough for you to support it, and again, that's fine. But it is a reason in and of itself.

[Big Fat F'er]

TripleS said:

Big Fat F'er said:

Fat Audi 80 said:

I don't care about others.... .

Don't say that, even in jest, you never know who's reading this.

Very good Brian. Yes I read that bit. Humorous, well done - I like it.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

Thank you, very much appreciated. See, you can disagree and still have a laugh. If you speak to Fat Audi at all, just explain it to him will you.

[Big Fat F'er]

TripleS said:

Big Fat F'er said:

TripleS said:

I do feel that BFF's approach is not going to help get the youngsters on board, and that does need doing I think

My 'approach' is to be very clear about what is expected. Anyone joining an organisation like the IAM (for example purposes only) should know what is expected of them. During the training it is made very clear. Advanced Drivers are expected to drive within the limits at all times, including overtaking.

That's fine, I agree it is best to be clear about things so far as possible.

Good. We are okay so far, possibly in agreement.

TripleS said:

Big Fat F'er said:

Tell you what. So that you don't think it's a personal attack on you, do me a favour. Publish the bits where the Advanced Institutions and the Police are recommending that you can break the limits.

You can't. Because they don't do it. They absolutely 100% state that you shouldn't break the limit.

I'm not taking anything as a personal attack, so don't worry about that, but your two paragraphs there do not make sense. First you ask me to publish material produced by others, and then you immediately say I can't do it because the others never produced it, which is probably right, so that's not got us far.

Hang on, don't lets lose it. You know (and I know you know) that I did that to emphasise the point that the Institutions (including the Old Bill) explicitly state it is not acceptable.

TripleS said:

Big Fat F'er said:

You have decided it is not right for you, and you have decided to break the limits if you want to. So, we are not saying it makes you bad, or evil, or necessarily unsafe, or that you can't drive, or that you don't care, or that you have no experience, or that you have no skill. It is just that if you do it, it is not Advanced, as defined by the Advanced Institutions and Police. What is wrong with that approach.

Brian* - unlike most PH members I can well recall the days when we had no NSL whatsoever, and I drove for several years in that era, before the rules changed for the worse. Even so, as far as the law is concerned I have no excuse, no question about that. Ideally the current rules should be obeyed, but having lived in pre-NSL days and enjoyed a wholly different regime of motoring, it does colour one's feelings about these things. I'm assuming that you are a good deal younger than me and you will not have lived through that better era of motoring, and I just think this leaves the two of us with fundamentally different attitudes.

* temporary assumption on my part. Please adjust as appropriate.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

Assume nothing!!!

Edited by Big Fat F'er on Friday 16th June 16:08

[vonhosen]

GreenV8S said:

Big Fat F'er said:

when I said "Now go out for a drive, chill out, and realise there are more important things in life than our differences" for some reason you think that is 'telling' you what to do.

Well it does rather look to me as if you are 'telling' somebody to go out for a drive etc there.

In terms of blinkered or entrenched views, the main thing that disappoints me about this thread is not the patronising attitudes from some people or the rudeness from others, it is that none of the 'obey the speed limit at all times' proponents have put forward any arguments to support their position. I've explained why I think you're wrong, and all you (collectively) have done in return is reiterate your opinions and dodge the question of why. I'm left to conclude that you're all obeying the law for no better reason than that it is there, and that isn't a good enough reason for me to support it.

We have to have limits so that we have some control over the differentials that can be obtained. Two vehicles moving at similar speeds are less of a problem to one another, than ones doing markedly different speeds. Speed limits help in limiting the size of those differentials. They also (if people keep to them) can help with people's expectation of someone's speed, so it closely matches the reality of it. The sort of situation I am talking about is junction around bend, speed limit in force, with a car waiting to pull out with a limited view. They have to make a decision if it's safe to pull out before the unseen car/bike could come around the corner. They should rightly be able to expect that car to not be traveling above the speed limit in making that decision. Those making assessments & performing actions on the basis of those assessments, may not have acute judgement of speed/distance & may not be highly skilled. They have however displayed that they have attained the minimum competency level to travel on our roads & cars exceeding limits just make things harder for others who may not have the skill required to interact safely with those enhanced speeds.

Edited by vonhosen on Friday 16th June 16:34

[TripleS]

Big Fat F'er said:

TripleS said:

Big Fat F'er said:

Fat Audi 80 said:

I don't care about others.... .

Don't say that, even in jest, you never know who's reading this.

Very good Brian. Yes I read that bit. Humorous, well done - I like it.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

Thank you, very much appreciated. See, you can disagree and still have a laugh. If you speak to Fat Audi at all, just explain it to him will you.

Oh I doubt if Steve needs me to explain it.

What is unfortunate here IMHO is that our fundamental conflicts of opinion are being exacerbated by differences in our ways of presenting our respective views - different styles, different personalities etc. FWIW I don't happen to like too much of a heavy handed approach, and it definitely does not help to convince me of the merits of a person's case. A perfectly good message can sometimes get lost amongst the general noise and clamour! Shame, innit?

Best wishes all,
Dave.

[GreenV8S]

Philbes said:

Law-abiding citizens who don't wish to pay the penalty for breaking the law? Why does that need justifing?

I think we all know the legal status of speed limits and there isn't much more needs to be said about it.

What's worth discussing IMO is whether the law is a useful one, what is the best way for it to be enforced, and what is the best way for drivers to respond to it.

Just to say that the law should be obeyed scrupulously regardless of circumstances may give a warm fuzzy feeling of being on the moral high ground but I think is unrealistic and actually undesirable. Based on the behaviour of the people I see on the roads, most people don't bother sticking to the speed limit most of the time. And they're right not to, because there's no reason to except to the extent that it is enforced, and there's no reason it should be enforce d and various reasons why it shouldn't.

Speed limits have their uses but are not *particularly* valuable IMO. Enforcement of speed limits does harm as well as good, and it is important to maximise the good and minimise the harm. Simply saying that everyone must obey the law doesn't get us anywhere interesting.

[rsvmilly]

GreenV8S said:

What's worth discussing IMO is whether the law is a useful one, what is the best way for it to be enforced, and what is the best way for drivers to respond to it.

Just to say that the law should be obeyed scrupulously regardless of circumstances may give a warm fuzzy feeling of being on the moral high ground but I think is unrealistic and actually undesirable. Based on the behaviour of the people I see on the roads, most people don't bother sticking to the speed limit most of the time. And they're right not to, because there's no reason to except to the extent that it is enforced, and there's no reason it should be enforce d and various reasons why it shouldn't.

Speed limits have their uses but are not *particularly* valuable IMO. Enforcement of speed limits does harm as well as good, and it is important to maximise the good and minimise the harm. Simply saying that everyone must obey the law doesn't get us anywhere interesting.

They should be SPEED GUIDES instead of LIMITS but then I'm sure we all appreciate that would introduce too much OPINION into speed prosecutions.

Crikey. My longest ever thread - not that I've been in it much!

It is unfair for everybody to jump on BFF (metaphorically) as he has his opinion and he hasn't been overly heavy handed in his proferring of it. IAM and THE SYSTEM are rigidly set out with firm rules and guidelines. If you want to be Advanced in their definition then you have to stick to their rules - and that includes their rules on speeding.

My opening question was whether I should take every overtaking opportunity within the confines of the speed limit. To fit in with the IAM's rules, I should. This means I should not drive at 55mph if I could drive at 60 (in an NSL). By their rules, I should also not drive at 65, but keep to 60.

It all seems a bit rigid to me. No allowance is made for personal judgement.

I'll get off the fence and repeat what I said earlier - that I don't see any harm in speed in appropriate places. I have done advanced motorcycle tuition (I even have an NVQ* in it) and I can say with some certainty that my instructors are from the same company as Mr Audis. I have taken valuable tools from that training and put them into practice but I don't follow every rule slavishly. So I am not Advanced - merely an enthusiastic amateur who seeks self improvement.

Interesting discussion though, chaps.




* Given out with 5 litres of oil?

[Big Fat F'er]

Von's points above are spot on, and very clearly describe the physical effects of not following the limits e.g. expectations (pulling out of a junction).

But it is also a moral difference that sets some apart. There is a road near me. It goes from a 30mph, to a 40mph zone. This zone travels past a pub, some houses, near a garden centre, back to houses. After approx 1/2 mile it changes back to 30mph.

When driving this road, I have always done 30mph, then 40mph, then 30mph when appropriate (conditions, weather, other road users). However, the limits have just been changed this week. The 40mph signs have come down, and it is now all 30mph.

Right then. Is it safe to travel on that road above 30mph? Well, it must be in some circumstances, 'cos thats what we've been doing. So, is it okay to ignore the signs, and still do 40mph. Well.....

1) If the good old BiB stop you, you will definitely get done.
2) If you go on an Observed run, the Observer will certainly comment on the fact that you are breaking the speed limit.
3) If you are on an Advanced Test (IAM just for example) the Class1 Police Driver will definitely comment. He/She would almost certainly allow 1 offence to go 'unpunished' (they look out for serial offenders, rather than occasional drifters) but if you continued to do this, he/she would fail you. However, some would definitely fail you for being so far over the limit on the first offence.

None of the above would allow you to say that you are ignoring the limit as it used to be 40mph. They would simply say it is now 30mph, so that should be your maximum limit.

The main reason for driving at 30mph is therefore a moral decision to follow the law, and follow the Advanced Code. That is what the Advanced organisations are doing; asking you to follow the law and set an example, even when you disagree with it.

So although I may not agree with it, and I will be trying to find out why, I will adhere to it in the meantime. As an Advanced Driver. Obviously you have the right to ignore the limits, decide to drive as fast as you want, and say that no one has the right to dictate your speed. Yes, you can say that, just stop claiming that somehow the Advanced code supports your stance. The BiB dont, and neither do the Institutions.

BFF

P.S. this was a general reply, rather than a 'quote', to stop any individuals getting too upset!

Edited by Big Fat F'er on Friday 16th June 18:33

[GreenV8S]

Big Fat F'er said:

Von's points above are spot on, and very clearly describe the physical effects of not following the limits e.g. expectations (pulling out of a junction).

Setting expectations for other road users is one of the benefits of a speed limit. From that point of view, exceeding the speed limit by a significant margin is a bad thing. The question becomes: what is a significant margin? I don't think there's any absolutely right answer, but my feeling is that somewhere in the region of 20%-30% is enough to be significant. If you can judge somebody's speed and whether you have time to pull out in front of them at 30 mph, somebody travelling at 35mph probably won't be difficult to cope with. Somebody at 40 might be. I'd support policies aimed at producing compliance at this sort of level (as long as the speed limits themslves aren't unreasonably low). But very small differences in speed are irrelevent and nobody should be need to worry about them. The harm of being obliged to maintain your speed that accurately is far worse than the benefit of a small reduction in speed.

Hopefully it's obvious, but just to avoid confusion: I'm talking about speeds at or below the safe appropriate speed for the circumstances. 1 mph can make a huge difference if it is 1 mph too fast for the circumstances.

[vonhosen]

GreenV8S said:

Big Fat F'er said:

Von's points above are spot on, and very clearly describe the physical effects of not following the limits e.g. expectations (pulling out of a junction).

Setting expectations for other road users is one of the benefits of a speed limit. From that point of view, exceeding the speed limit by a significant margin is a bad thing. The question becomes: what is a significant margin? I don't think there's any absolutely right answer, but my feeling is that somewhere in the region of 20%-30% is enough to be significant. If you can judge somebody's speed and whether you have time to pull out in front of them at 30 mph, somebody travelling at 35mph probably won't be difficult to cope with. Somebody at 40 might be. I'd support policies aimed at producing compliance at this sort of level (as long as the speed limits themslves aren't unreasonably low). But very small differences in speed are irrelevent and nobody should be need to worry about them. The harm of being obliged to maintain your speed that accurately is far worse than the benefit of a small reduction in speed.

Hopefully it's obvious, but just to avoid confusion: I'm talking about speeds at or below the safe appropriate speed for the circumstances. 1 mph can make a huge difference if it is 1 mph too fast for the circumstances.

As far as prosecutions thresholds count, I don't disagree with your general premise (not prosecuting for small margins).
It comes down to opinion of what's unacceptable then though & the opinion that's going to matter in that, is the opinion of the person making a decision on whether to prosecute or not. The opinion of the driver breaking the limit will be of little consequence.

Of course the matter of whether we should be attempting to drive within the speed limits at all times (even if we unintentionally go over them a fraction) & prosecution thresholds themselves, are again very different matters.

Edited by vonhosen on Friday 16th June 18:56

[GreenV8S]

vonhosen said:

It comes down to opinion of what's unacceptable then though & the opinion that's going to matter in that, is the opinion of the person making a decision on whether to prosecute or not. The opinion of the driver breaking the limit will be of little consequence.

I would think that that this is something that could be determined by policy rather than by personal opinion. For example, there are people exceeding the speed limit by less than 10%+2 (or whatever the threshold for prosecution is) who probably *could* be prosecuted if that was felt to be desirable. And the decision to offer 'speed awareness' courses rather than prosecute is a matter of policy rather than law. Not every single infringement of the law should be punished, and where the harm of breaking the law is very small, and the cost of achieving compliance is potentially very big, there's an argument against prosecuting.

[Observer2]

vonhosen said:

The sort of situation I am talking about is junction around bend, speed limit in force, with a car waiting to pull out with a limited view. They have to make a decision if it's safe to pull out before the unseen car/bike could come around the corner. They should rightly be able to expect that car to not be traveling above the speed limit in making that decision. Those making assessments & performing actions on the basis of those assessments, may not have acute judgement of speed/distance & may not be highly skilled. They have however displayed that they have attained the minimum competency level to travel on our roads & cars exceeding limits just make things harder for others who may not have the skill required to interact safely with those enhanced speeds.

That really misses the point. It's not the emerging vehicle's expectation of speed that's important; it's the question whether the car on the major road is observing the fundamental safe speed principle of being able to stop in the distance that can be seen to be clear. If it is, it doesn't really matter whether that speed is below, at or above the limit. If it isn't, then it's UNSAFE whether below, at or above the limit.