A question of good progress

[Philbes]

GreenV8S said:

Philbes said:

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

Simply saying that everyone must obey the law doesn't get us anywhere interesting.

I didn't say "that everyone must obey the law ". Some of us just cannot afford to take the chance of incurring the (draconian?) financial penalties and potential loss of mobility (and possibly job) that can result from (what I consider) minor infractions of the set speed limits. Whether I agree with those limits or not does not change the fact that I feel the need to abide by them.

[GreenV8S]

Observer2 said:

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.

That's true enough, but in addition to that I think it's important to be predictable and that includes travelling at the sort of speed that people are expecting.

[StressedDave]

Observer2 said:

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.

Actually, I think it should be 'distance that can be seen to be clear and is likely to remain so'. Otherwise you'd have to slow down to a much lower speed on the approach to any junction because someone might pull out. At some level you do have to accept that most drivers will do the expected thing.

It is the 'remain so' that is fundamentally important when dealing with the emerging vehicle problem. Most drivers of emerging vehicles work purely on the distance your car appears to be away from a junction as the fundamental input to their decision making process. If you are driving at the expected speed then in general all is fine and dandy. At a higher speed then you run the risk of having to lose a large chunk of speed just when there is no room to do so because a driver has seen you a long distance away and judged purely on that distance that is is safe to pull out.

It's something I drill into clients - you manage your safety by giving the proper impressions to those drivers around you in good time enabling them to make the decision you've decided they're going to make.

[vonhosen]

Observer2 said:

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.

But the fact is that people DON'T observe the fundamental rule of safety & they do that where also exceeding the speed limit.

I had a conversation with a safe rider of a motorbike a little while ago (been riding/driving for years, never had a collision before blah blah blah) who came around a bend to be presented with a lorry completely blocking the road & laying on it's side. He couldn't stop, went off road nearside & knocked himself out being taken to hospital. He got reported for without due care. He thought that very unfair as it wasn't his fault & he avoided the lorry which shouldn't have been there anyway. When it was explained to him that he should have been able to stop within the distance he could see to be clear his retort was, that it was a completely unreasonable expectation to do that, as you'd have to be riding so slow all the time it would be ridiculous.

Back to our car wanting to pull out. Even if the car in the junction can see the approaching car, & the speeding car can stop within the total roadsurface it can see to be clear on it's side of the road, it is not a requirement that the driver waiting to pull out has excellent judgement of speed & distance in order to be able to drive. They only need to have adequate judgement of it to operate safely with the other cars operating legally on the roads. They are entitled where viewing a car approaching, to not expect it to be travelling substantially over the limit when making their assessment of whether it is safe to pull out. It's not fair on them to expect otherwise. Just as, if you go into a bend, you are expected to be able to stop within the distance you can see to be clear & in negotiating that bend you should be able to do so without having to account in your planning for a vehicle towards doing an overtake through the bend , which would mean that you're being able to stop within the distance you can see to be clear is nowhere near enough.
In short there is some entitlement for others to expect you to be acting within the law with your movements when driving & they encounter you.


EDIT
I see stresseddave has addressed some of that.

Edited by vonhosen on Friday 16th June 20:32

[GreenV8S]

Philbes said:

I didn't say "that everyone must obey the law ". Some of us just cannot afford to take the chance of incurring the (draconian?) financial penalties and potential loss of mobility (and possibly job) that can result from (what I consider) minor infractions of the set speed limits. Whether I agree with those limits or not does not change the fact that I feel the need to abide by them.

If you decide you need to obey the law to protect your license and your wallet I respect your decision. Each of us has to judge the likelihood of being caught and the likely penalties that might be incurred when deciding whether to break any law or regulation. I suppose there might be people for whom the prospect of any penalty at all is so fearsome that they decide never ever to break the speed limit. That reaction seems excessive to me but I'm not them.

What I don't respect is blanket statements (not by you specifically) telling us that no driver must ever break the speed limit. The only reason that has been presented to comply with the speed limits is because they are enforced with very harsh penalties. I question the usefullness of the arbitrary speed limit and I argue that the policy which enforces it relatively strictly is wrong, harmfull and counterproductive. (And yes, like you, I comply with them to the extent necessary to protect my license, which is valuable to me.)

[GreenV8S]

StressedDave said:

Actually, ...

Absolutely agree with all that, and well put.

[Fat Audi 80]

I am retiring from this thread as I know longer understand what is humour and what is debate.

My only parting comment will be please use the smilies if you want to have a laugh.

Thank you.

Stephen.

[Philbes]

GreenV8S said:

Philbes said:

I didn't say "that everyone must obey the law ". Some of us just cannot afford to take the chance of incurring the (draconian?) financial penalties and potential loss of mobility (and possibly job) that can result from (what I consider) minor infractions of the set speed limits. Whether I agree with those limits or not does not change the fact that I feel the need to abide by them.

If you decide you need to obey the law to protect your license and your wallet I respect your decision. Each of us has to judge the likelihood of being caught and the likely penalties that might be incurred when deciding whether to break any law or regulation. I suppose there might be people for whom the prospect of any penalty at all is so fearsome that they decide never ever to break the speed limit. That reaction seems excessive to me but I'm not them.

What I don't respect is blanket statements (not by you specifically) telling us that no driver must ever break the speed limit. The only reason that has been presented to comply with the speed limits is because they are enforced with very harsh penalties. I question the usefullness of the arbitrary speed limit and I argue that the policy which enforces it relatively strictly is wrong, harmfull and counterproductive. (And yes, like you, I comply with them to the extent necessary to protect my license, which is valuable to me.)

I have no problem with other people breaking the speed limit, as long as by doing so they do not endanger other people. However, I do expect people who disagree with the speed limits and/or the method of enforcement to make their disagreement known - not just on an internet forum but to their MP. If you want change you may actually have to do something (rather than just moan on the internet) to bring it about.

[GreenV8S]

Philbes said:

I do expect people who disagree with the speed limits and/or the method of enforcement to make their disagreement known - not just on an internet forum but to their MP. If you want change you may actually have to do something (rather than just moan on the internet) to bring it about.

OK, thanks for the advice, I'll take that under consideration.

Don't disagree with your other comments, by the way.

[Philbes]

GreenV8S said:

Philbes said:

I do expect people who disagree with the speed limits and/or the method of enforcement to make their disagreement known - not just on an internet forum but to their MP. If you want change you may actually have to do something (rather than just moan on the internet) to bring it about.

OK, thanks for the advice, I'll take that under consideration.

Don't disagree with your other comments, by the way.

Not really meant as advice - just a suggestion. Not aimed at you but all people who moan, but don't contact their MP who wants their vote and just may be prepared to take some action based on the views they put forward. Won't have any effect unless a sufficient number do it, but it's better than doing nothing.

[Big Fat F'er]

Philbes said:

I do expect people who disagree with the speed limits and/or the method of enforcement to make their disagreement known - not just on an internet forum but to their MP. If you want change you may actually have to do something (rather than just moan on the internet) to bring it about.

Well said that man. But.....don't hold your breath.

[Big Fat F'er]

GreenV8S said:

What I don't respect is blanket statements (not by you specifically) telling us that no driver must ever break the speed limit.

What is so wrong in saying to Civilian Drivers 'don't break the speed limits'. There are many other laws that you follow, on and off the road, so what is so special about this one.

GreenV8S said:

The only reason that has been presented to comply with the speed limits is because they are enforced with very harsh penalties.

You keep saying this, and I don't know if you genuinely believe it, or you deliberately misrepresent what is said. It has been said on here many many times that there are many many drivers that obey the limit simply because it is the law. They have decided to do it as a matter of principle. You may not like that stance, or even agree with it. But you shouldn't deny that it exists. You seem to be suggesting that the only reason you follow the law on speeding is because of the harsh penalties if caught. Fine. But there are others that do it for different reasons.

GreenV8S said:

I question the usefullness of the arbitrary speed limit....

Why are the exisiting ones arbitrary? I'm not suggesting that every limit has always been set correctly, what I'm asking is why you suggest they are arbitrary. You may not agree with the reasoning behind them, but that doesn't mean they are arbitrary.

GreenV8S said:

....and I argue that the policy which enforces it relatively strictly is wrong, harmfull and counterproductive.

What would happen if we go with your limits and system you proposed earlier. You said that 20%-30% over the set limit was significant. If I remember what you said correctly, you said that if you make the conscious decision to drive down a 40mph road at 48mph, then you accept you should get 'booked'. However, if you drive down it at 47mph, you should be let off. So isn't this exactly the same as we have now. The ONLY difference you are proposing is that you want to set higher limits. You still want folk to get done based on a specifc speed regardless of conditions or safety. You just want the limit raising to what you think is correct.

I am only trying to understand exactly where you are coming from. Obviously we disagree on the basics, but I genuinely don't see how what you are proposing is any different to what we have now (other than higher limits).

[outofthebox]

A couple of anecdotes...

20 odd years ago I was driving from Newcastle to Teesside on the A1M at around midnight. There was hardly any traffic, the road was dry and visibilty clear. I was doing about 85mph in lane 1. A pair of headlights came up behind me very rapidly. I just stayed where I was. After a few minute the car behind passed me and turned out to be a police patrol car. I was not stopped

Today I was joining a fast dual-carriageway. Before joining I had assessed from the flyover that traffic was fairly light and fast moving. As I entered the single-lane slip road I came upon a car doing around 35mph. It became clear s/he had no intention of accelerating to the speed of the traffic on the main road. Of course I hung right back and waited until dolly day-dream had joined the carriageway and caused lorry in lane one to brake hard. I then proceeded to join safely and accelerated to a little over 70 mph as I moved into lane 2 in order to pass said loory and car.

Questions..

1)Who broke the speed limit?

2)Who was in the wrong?

[StressedDave]

Big Fat F'er said:

GreenV8S said:

What I don't respect is blanket statements (not by you specifically) telling us that no driver must ever break the speed limit.

What is so wrong in saying to Civilian Drivers 'don't break the speed limits'. There are many other laws that you follow, on and off the road, so what is so special about this one.

Actually nothing IMVHO... however it's what this means to most drivers that is the problem. I'd rather be driven by someone who occasionally drifted over the posted limit but was using their full £10 of concentration to assess and plan around the hazards being presented to them, than by someone who spent a proportion of that £10 continually staring at the speedo making sure that they didn't break the speed limit.

I think you'd find it quite hard to find a lot of drivers who can honestly say hand-on-heart that they have never broken a speed limit. From a training point of view, I think it is better to make drivers safe first and law-abiding second - get their though processes right and it's then much easier to make them understand that to ensure their continuing safety they should be driving at the expected speed for the given road conditions and prevailing limit.

[vonhosen]

outofthebox said:

A couple of anecdotes...

20 odd years ago I was driving from Newcastle to Teesside on the A1M at around midnight. There was hardly any traffic, the road was dry and visibilty clear. I was doing about 85mph in lane 1. A pair of headlights came up behind me very rapidly. I just stayed where I was. After a few minute the car behind passed me and turned out to be a police patrol car. I was not stopped

Today I was joining a fast dual-carriageway. Before joining I had assessed from the flyover that traffic was fairly light and fast moving. As I entered the single-lane slip road I came upon a car doing around 35mph. It became clear s/he had no intention of accelerating to the speed of the traffic on the main road. Of course I hung right back and waited until dolly day-dream had joined the carriageway and caused lorry in lane one to brake hard. I then proceeded to join safely and accelerated to a little over 70 mph as I moved into lane 2 in order to pass said loory and car.

Questions..

1)Who broke the speed limit?

2)Who was in the wrong?

1) You

2) You (in both scenarios for breaking the limit) & the car joining the DC (in the second scenario for entering the live lane causing the lorry to brake hard).

[Observer2]

StressedDave said:

Actually, I think it should be 'distance that can be seen to be clear and is likely to remain so'. Otherwise you'd have to slow down to a much lower speed on the approach to any junction because someone might pull out. At some level you do have to accept that most drivers will do the expected thing.

It is the 'remain so' that is fundamentally important when dealing with the emerging vehicle problem. Most drivers of emerging vehicles work purely on the distance your car appears to be away from a junction as the fundamental input to their decision making process. If you are driving at the expected speed then in general all is fine and dandy. At a higher speed then you run the risk of having to lose a large chunk of speed just when there is no room to do so because a driver has seen you a long distance away and judged purely on that distance that is is safe to pull out.

It's something I drill into clients - you manage your safety by giving the proper impressions to those drivers around you in good time enabling them to make the decision you've decided they're going to make.

I agree with your extension although, surprisingly, Roadcraft doesn't seem explicitly to recognise that's it's necessary in order to complete the 'safe speed' rule. Actually, if one is looking for an all-encompassing rule, we have to go a bit further still.


Roadcraft says "Always be able to stop in the distance you can see to be clear"

I would add:

First: "Always be able to stop comfortably, on your own side of the road, in the distance you can see to be clear"

"Comfortably" because we shouldn't plan on having to use emergency braking effort and "on your own side of the road" for obvious reasons (perhaps that's self-evident so not absolutely necessary).

Second: "Always be able to stop comfortably, on your own side of the road, in the distance you can see to be clear and can reasonably expect will remain clear.

This is the same, in substance as your qualification. It's the caveat that covers the vehicle waiting to emerge from the minor road; or the approach to a pedestrian crossing; or the line of parked cars with potential for hidden pedestrians; or the ball bouncing in the road. It's also the blind bend on a single track road, where you need to be able to stop in half the distance you can see to be clear.

Third: "Always be able to stop comfortably, on your own side of the road, in the distance you can see to be clear and can reasonably expect will remain clear or which you know, with reasonable certainty, will become clear and remain clear.

This last qualification covers following distance. A typical following distance may be less than our overall stopping distance but that's OK because we know, with reasonable certainty, that the vehicle ahead will not be occupying the space of road it is in at any particular moment by the time we get there. However, if that reasonable certainty becomes less certain (e.g. because forward observation shows traffic slowing ahead of it), we need to plan for it and possibly reduce speed. This extension is particularly necessary if we close up to the overtaking position.


[edited for typos]

Edited by Observer2 on Monday 19th June 11:48

Edited by Observer2 on Monday 19th June 11:50

Edited by Observer2 on Monday 19th June 11:52

[Big Fat F'er]

StressedDave said:

Big Fat F'er said:

GreenV8S said:

What I don't respect is blanket statements (not by you specifically) telling us that no driver must ever break the speed limit.

What is so wrong in saying to Civilian Drivers 'don't break the speed limits'. There are many other laws that you follow, on and off the road, so what is so special about this one.

StressedDave said:

Actually nothing IMVHO... however it's what this means to most drivers that is the problem. I'd rather be driven by someone who occasionally drifted over the posted limit but was using their full £10 of concentration to assess and plan around the hazards being presented to them, than by someone who spent a proportion of that £10 continually staring at the speedo making sure that they didn't break the speed limit.

It's this way of presenting it that makes it difficult to debate though. You infer that either you can concentrate fully and be safe OR concentrate on the speedo to the detriment of safety. But that isn't true, is it. For a number of reasons.

Lets be honest, this is supposedly the Advanced section on a website devoted to 'keen' drivers. Surely it's not too much to ask that these Advanced drivers can incorporate the necessary speed checks into their driving plan, without being unsafe. The same way they can incorporate the necessary (and frequent) mirror checks. Or even the same way they can doa station change (or CD change) or whatever.

Also (although the end result is the same i.e. speeding) there is a difference between someone who occasionally & accidentally drifts over the limit, and those who deliberately drive over the limit. You've got to understand the difference to know how to address it. I was out with someone yesterday who was driving in a 30mph zone. She stated she would always drive it at about 35mph! I think most on here are the same, they want to conciously break the limit (based on what they've said and written).

Advanced drivers should be able to use all their skills, knowledge, technique and experience to remain in the limit, without overspending on the £10 worth of concentration. However much it costs (!!!), you should be able to spend it, plus all the other 'stuff' and still have change left over. That's what advanced driving is about.

StressedDave said:

I think you'd find it quite hard to find a lot of drivers who can honestly say hand-on-heart that they have never broken a speed limit.

Absolutely. But we're not talking about people who say I have been known to accidentally go over the limit. We are talking about drivers who say I consciously decide to go at 35mph (or 36mph, or 38mph, etc) in a 30mph zone, or I conciously decide to go at 85mph in a 70mph zone, etc., etc., etc.

StressedDave said:

From a training point of view, I think it is better to make drivers safe first and law-abiding second - get their though processes right and it's then much easier to make them understand that to ensure their continuing safety they should be driving at the expected speed for the given road conditions and prevailing limit.

But shouldn't we teach that they should be safe and law abiding. One thing. As soon as we split it, don't you make the law abiding secondary. Whereas the law abiding is part of, and contribute to, the safety. They are totally interdependent.

Edited by Big Fat F'er on Monday 19th June 12:24

[Big Fat F'er]

outofthebox said:

A couple of anecdotes...

20 odd years ago I was driving from Newcastle to Teesside on the A1M at around midnight. There was hardly any traffic, the road was dry and visibilty clear. I was doing about 85mph in lane 1. A pair of headlights came up behind me very rapidly. I just stayed where I was. After a few minute the car behind passed me and turned out to be a police patrol car. I was not stopped

Today I was joining a fast dual-carriageway. Before joining I had assessed from the flyover that traffic was fairly light and fast moving. As I entered the single-lane slip road I came upon a car doing around 35mph. It became clear s/he had no intention of accelerating to the speed of the traffic on the main road. Of course I hung right back and waited until dolly day-dream had joined the carriageway and caused lorry in lane one to brake hard. I then proceeded to join safely and accelerated to a little over 70 mph as I moved into lane 2 in order to pass said loory and car.

Questions..

1)Who broke the speed limit?

2)Who was in the wrong?

1) You did, when you went at 85mph, and when you went over 70mph.
2) You, when you broke the speed limit both times, and 'Dolly DayDream' when she caused the driver to brake hard.

[StressedDave]

Big Fat F'er said:

StressedDave said:

Actually nothing IMVHO... however it's what this means to most drivers that is the problem. I'd rather be driven by someone who occasionally drifted over the posted limit but was using their full £10 of concentration to assess and plan around the hazards being presented to them, than by someone who spent a proportion of that £10 continually staring at the speedo making sure that they didn't break the speed limit.

It's this way of presenting it that makes it difficult to debate though. You infer that either you can concentrate fully and be safe OR concentrate on the speedo to the detriment of safety. But that isn't true, is it. For a number of reasons.

Lets be honest, this is supposedly the Advanced section on a website devoted to 'keen' drivers. Surely it's not too much to ask that these Advanced drivers can incorporate the necessary speed checks into their driving plan, without being unsafe. The same way they can incorporate the necessary (and frequent) mirror checks. Or even the same way they can do a station change (or CD change) or whatever.

Perhaps the way I phrased it is a little disingenuous, but if 'not exceeding the speed limit' ever becomes a higher priority in drivers' minds than 'drive safely'... I've had a few clients who are wasting huge amounts of concentration making sure that they aren't exceeding the speed limit and have got themselves into all sorts of trouble as a result.

Big Fat F'er said:

Also (although the end result is the same i.e. speeding) there is a difference between someone who occasionally & accidentally drifts over the limit, and those who deliberately drive over the limit. You've got to understand the difference to know how to address it. I was out with someone yesterday who was driving in a 30mph zone. She stated she would always drive it at about 35mph! I think most on here are the same, they want to conciously break the limit (based on what they've said and written).

Advanced drivers should be able to use all their skills, knowledge, technique and experience to remain in the limit, without overspending on the £10 worth of concentration. However much it costs (!!!), you should be able to spend it, plus all the other 'stuff' and still have change left over. That's what advanced driving is about.

There is quite a difference between 'should' and 'will'. If you have such a narrow definition of advanced driving that you remove the 'advanced' tag from any driver possessed of the skills, knowledge, technique and experience but who doesn't adhere to a speed limit then it is unsurprising that many here disagree with you.

BFF said:

StressedDave said:

I think you'd find it quite hard to find a lot of drivers who can honestly say hand-on-heart that they have never broken a speed limit.

Absolutely. But we're not talking about people who say I have been known to accidentally go over the limit. We are talking about drivers who say I consciously decide to go at 35mph (or 36mph, or 38mph, etc) in a 30mph zone, or I conciously decide to go at 85mph in a 70mph zone, etc., etc., etc.

Other than the fact that it is clearly illegal and those who make this conscious decision are risking their liberty to continue doing so, is there really a problem with this if in doing so they manage others expectations and safety? FWIW I don't disagree with you that exceeding the speed limit in built-up areas where there is a reasonable expectation of law-abidedness is foolish from a safety point-of-view, but can the same really be said about a deserted country lane with excellent visibility and no traffic around you?

BFF said:

StressedDave said:

From a training point of view, I think it is better to make drivers safe first and law-abiding second - get their though processes right and it's then much easier to make them understand that to ensure their continuing safety they should be driving at the expected speed for the given road conditions and prevailing limit.

But shouldn't we teach that they should be safe and law abiding. One thing. As soon as we split it, don't you make the law abiding secondary. Whereas the law abiding is part of, and contribute to, the safety. They are totally interdependent.

Actually they're not interdependent - you can be law abiding (as far as speed is concerned) and be a menace on the road just as easily as you can be a law-breaker and safe. From a training point of view you can force someone's behaviour, and in some ways the regimented training used by the Police, IAM and RoADAR is exactly that (not that I am in any way denigrating the work these organisations do in terms of road safety), or you can go down the coaching route of providing the right level of stimulus and feedback to create a change in people's thinking. The former provides more consistency (hence the reason the Police use it) but the latter eventually provides the better performance.

Edited by StressedDave on Monday 19th June 13:43

[Big Fat F'er]

StressedDave said:

Big Fat F'er said:

StressedDave said:

Actually nothing IMVHO... however it's what this means to most drivers that is the problem. I'd rather be driven by someone who occasionally drifted over the posted limit but was using their full £10 of concentration to assess and plan around the hazards being presented to them, than by someone who spent a proportion of that £10 continually staring at the speedo making sure that they didn't break the speed limit.

It's this way of presenting it that makes it difficult to debate though. You infer that either you can concentrate fully and be safe OR concentrate on the speedo to the detriment of safety. But that isn't true, is it. For a number of reasons.

Lets be honest, this is supposedly the Advanced section on a website devoted to 'keen' drivers. Surely it's not too much to ask that these Advanced drivers can incorporate the necessary speed checks into their driving plan, without being unsafe. The same way they can incorporate the necessary (and frequent) mirror checks. Or even the same way they can do a station change (or CD change) or whatever.

Perhaps the way I phrased it is a little disingenuous, but if 'not exceeding the speed limit' ever becomes a higher priority in drivers' minds than 'drive safely'... I've had a few clients who are wasting huge amounts of concentration making sure that they aren't exceeding the speed limit and have got themselves into all sorts of trouble as a result.

If someone is having to spend that amount of concentration in determining whether or not they aren't exceeding the limits, then something is wrong. Are you saying that these clients of yours can EITHER check they are within the limits OR be able to avoid getting into all sorts of trouble. Are you saying that it's one or the other? I agree that some drivers start off like that, but no Advanced drivers end up like that. Hence my argument for further training, and the fact that we should have high standards.

StressedDave said:

Big Fat F'er said:

Also (although the end result is the same i.e. speeding) there is a difference between someone who occasionally & accidentally drifts over the limit, and those who deliberately drive over the limit. You've got to understand the difference to know how to address it. I was out with someone yesterday who was driving in a 30mph zone. She stated she would always drive it at about 35mph! I think most on here are the same, they want to conciously break the limit (based on what they've said and written).

Advanced drivers should be able to use all their skills, knowledge, technique and experience to remain in the limit, without overspending on the £10 worth of concentration. However much it costs (!!!), you should be able to spend it, plus all the other 'stuff' and still have change left over. That's what advanced driving is about.

There is quite a difference between 'should' and 'will'. If you have such a narrow definition of advanced driving that you remove the 'advanced' tag from any driver possessed of the skills, knowledge, technique and experience but who doesn't adhere to a speed limit then it is unsurprising that many here disagree with you.

Correct. There is quite a difference. Advanced Drivers shuld be able to get their speed correct, without using up all their concentration. It should only form a small part of it. So if they can't do that, there is something wrong and they are not advanced. However, obviously some claim they can do it, but conciously decide not to. Hence the debate about the practical reasons to obey the limits, and also the moral decisions you can take. Plus, the agreement that if you belong to an Advanced Institution you should follow their rules and codes of practice.

StressedDave said:

BFF said:

StressedDave said:

I think you'd find it quite hard to find a lot of drivers who can honestly say hand-on-heart that they have never broken a speed limit.

Absolutely. But we're not talking about people who say I have been known to accidentally go over the limit. We are talking about drivers who say I consciously decide to go at 35mph (or 36mph, or 38mph, etc) in a 30mph zone, or I conciously decide to go at 85mph in a 70mph zone, etc., etc., etc.

Other than the fact that it is clearly illegal and those who make this conscious decision are risking their liberty to continue doing so, is there really a problem with this if in doing so they manage others expectations and safety? FWIW I don't disagree with you that exceeding the speed limit in built-up areas where there is a reasonable expectation of law-abidedness is foolish from a safety point-of-view, but can the same really be said about a deserted country lane with excellent visibility and no traffic around you?

The instant you make it okay to break the rules based on 'if it is safe then it is okay', it becomes a free for all. Sometimes it is worthwhile, from a Professional point of view, taking a stance that follows the rules. Thats why there will always be the debate. Aside from the practical reasons of following the speed limit (there are many, despite what has been claimed on here) the big difference is the moral decision. Do you follow the Law (even thought you may disagree with it) or do you break it. It demands very high personal standards, which is what is expected from all Professions.

StressedDave said:

BFF said:

StressedDave said:

From a training point of view, I think it is better to make drivers safe first and law-abiding second - get their though processes right and it's then much easier to make them understand that to ensure their continuing safety they should be driving at the expected speed for the given road conditions and prevailing limit.

But shouldn't we teach that they should be safe and law abiding. One thing. As soon as we split it, don't you make the law abiding secondary. Whereas the law abiding is part of, and contribute to, the safety. They are totally interdependent.

Actually they're not interdependent - you can be law abiding (as far as speed is concerned) and be a menace on the road just as easily as you can be a law-breaker and safe. From a training point of view you can force someone's behaviour, and in some ways the regimented training used by the Police, IAM and RoADAR is exactly that (not that I am in any way denigrating the work these organisations do in terms of road safety), or you can go down the coaching route of providing the right level of stimulus and feedback to create a change in people's thinking. The former provides more consistency (hence the reason the Police use it) but the latter eventually provides the better performance.

When I said interdependent, it is probably fair to say can be, rather than will be. The main point is the same though. Why can't we teach all drivers, but particularly Advanced ones, to be both. If they can't manage both either as a concept or a practical skill, there is something wrong. By the way, regimented training can also provide the right level of stimulus and feedback to create a change in people's thinking. It's all a matter of approach.