Speeding IS Big and Clever - A Rant
Discussion
...Because everything we have done as a species since we first left the trees has revolved around being better, faster and more efficient than whatever went before. It's part of the human condition every bit as much as our instincts to feed ourselevs and to reproduce.
There is no civilisation in the history of mankind which has profited from slowing itself down or hindering and even reversing this desire for improvement, and no area of our lives where we accept that things now are slower, less efficient and worse than they were in the past. We expect year on year improvements in every area of our lives and we normally get them because we obsessively strive for them in every area.
Cars have kept pace with this, and the worst, most basic car you can buy today is better in almost every way than the vast majority of cars made in 1965 when the speed limits were introduced in the UK. A modern car in good condition is safer cruising on the motorway at 100mph than any 1960s car at 70mph, yet the limits have been lowered and the enforcement of them stepped up relentlessly. On quiet, dry motorways in the right car with a competent drive, 120 is quite manageable.
We could raise the speed limit to 90 which would be a good start, 120 would be real progress, but that will still become dated in a few years. As cars, roads and drivers improve there is no reason not to expect safe cruising speeds to carry on going up. Why not 150 or 200mph when it's safe? At one time it was 4mph, and you had to have a man with a flag in front of you. The idea of ordinary millions of working men and women driving along at 80mph on their daily routes to work would have seemed probably more incredible then.
The idea of an upper limit applied always and everywhere remaining unchanged for decades is fundamentally wrong on a philosophical level. It's a denial of who we are and what we do as a species.
The way we as a country go about regulating speed limits is also a sad indictment of the kind of society we are - One that is stifled by regulations, one that is obsessed with safety as an end in itself, one that has lost the will and the habit of improvement in exchange for the comfort of imposed order and one that has lost belief in itself and it's people's ability to use their own judgement.
It's no coincidence that crime has risen over the same period, or that drug use has become normal, or that taxes have gone up every year - people are scared to think for themselves; so mistrustful of others that they need them to be bound by ever more laws and watched by ever more cameras. And yet we still feel more threatened than ever before too. By crime, by terrorism, by disease, by globalisation and it's effect on our financial well being. Not that each of these threats aren't real, but compare them to previous threats - of nuclear war, of invasion, of death from diseases that would hardly register nowadays, and from the real threat of starving to death if you were poor in the 19th century.
All of these improvements are down to the same basic instinct that pushes your right foot down that bit further, and when you deny that instinct you're denying the inventive, the striving, the imaginative and creative side of your brain. The side that put a man on the moon, that crossed oceans, tamed animals, built houses and lit fires. You're denying being human and accepting a position as a dumb beast of burden, cowed by your masters into plodding along for all eternity at the speed they dictate, against your own judgement and desire. Swapping the ecstacy of achievement for the safety of the feudal serf.
So go on, drive faster - it is big and it is incredibly clever.
There is no civilisation in the history of mankind which has profited from slowing itself down or hindering and even reversing this desire for improvement, and no area of our lives where we accept that things now are slower, less efficient and worse than they were in the past. We expect year on year improvements in every area of our lives and we normally get them because we obsessively strive for them in every area.
Cars have kept pace with this, and the worst, most basic car you can buy today is better in almost every way than the vast majority of cars made in 1965 when the speed limits were introduced in the UK. A modern car in good condition is safer cruising on the motorway at 100mph than any 1960s car at 70mph, yet the limits have been lowered and the enforcement of them stepped up relentlessly. On quiet, dry motorways in the right car with a competent drive, 120 is quite manageable.
We could raise the speed limit to 90 which would be a good start, 120 would be real progress, but that will still become dated in a few years. As cars, roads and drivers improve there is no reason not to expect safe cruising speeds to carry on going up. Why not 150 or 200mph when it's safe? At one time it was 4mph, and you had to have a man with a flag in front of you. The idea of ordinary millions of working men and women driving along at 80mph on their daily routes to work would have seemed probably more incredible then.
The idea of an upper limit applied always and everywhere remaining unchanged for decades is fundamentally wrong on a philosophical level. It's a denial of who we are and what we do as a species.
The way we as a country go about regulating speed limits is also a sad indictment of the kind of society we are - One that is stifled by regulations, one that is obsessed with safety as an end in itself, one that has lost the will and the habit of improvement in exchange for the comfort of imposed order and one that has lost belief in itself and it's people's ability to use their own judgement.
It's no coincidence that crime has risen over the same period, or that drug use has become normal, or that taxes have gone up every year - people are scared to think for themselves; so mistrustful of others that they need them to be bound by ever more laws and watched by ever more cameras. And yet we still feel more threatened than ever before too. By crime, by terrorism, by disease, by globalisation and it's effect on our financial well being. Not that each of these threats aren't real, but compare them to previous threats - of nuclear war, of invasion, of death from diseases that would hardly register nowadays, and from the real threat of starving to death if you were poor in the 19th century.
All of these improvements are down to the same basic instinct that pushes your right foot down that bit further, and when you deny that instinct you're denying the inventive, the striving, the imaginative and creative side of your brain. The side that put a man on the moon, that crossed oceans, tamed animals, built houses and lit fires. You're denying being human and accepting a position as a dumb beast of burden, cowed by your masters into plodding along for all eternity at the speed they dictate, against your own judgement and desire. Swapping the ecstacy of achievement for the safety of the feudal serf.
So go on, drive faster - it is big and it is incredibly clever.
AJS- said:
A modern car in good condition is safer cruising on the motorway at 100mph than any 1960s car at 70mph, yet the limits have been lowered and the enforcement of them stepped up relentlessly. On quiet, dry motorways in the right car with a competent drive, 120 is quite manageable.
Not in my 206 it ain't! Not even downhill with a following wind!But then speed limits should never apply to those with high powered speed machines they should be able to do whatever speed they wish of course.
Hopefully they are better drivers than us and are able to avoid us mere mortals as we tramp along at 70-90 ish...If they fail and wipe us slower motorists out, who is gonna re-populate the planet after we are gone or isn't it true what 'they' say...'big car little prick'?
oldsoak said:
AJS- said:
A modern car in good condition is safer cruising on the motorway at 100mph than any 1960s car at 70mph, yet the limits have been lowered and the enforcement of them stepped up relentlessly. On quiet, dry motorways in the right car with a competent drive, 120 is quite manageable.
Not in my 206 it ain't! Not even downhill with a following wind!But then speed limits should never apply to those with high powered speed machines they should be able to do whatever speed they wish of course.
Hopefully they are better drivers than us and are able to avoid us mere mortals as we tramp along at 70-90 ish...If they fail and wipe us slower motorists out, who is gonna re-populate the planet after we are gone or isn't it true what 'they' say...'big car little prick'?
Perhaps "graded" limits, where certain car / driver combinations are allowed to drive with a higher limit on certain roads (much like lorries must go slower)?
cars may go faster with more inherrent safety in their design but reaction times for humans will be the same and the roads are more crowded now than when cars were first out there.
I think for speeding offences to be taken seriously then the conditions at the time must be taken into account.
3am vs 5pm
wet vs dry
etc etc
I think for speeding offences to be taken seriously then the conditions at the time must be taken into account.
3am vs 5pm
wet vs dry
etc etc
I don't buy the "big car little prick" argument either. It's a female take on things, which puts human relationships at the centre of all decisions, assuming that buying a more expensive car is an attempt to make up for some perceived lack in your ability to have a relationship.
For most people I know, myself included, other people's perceptions of the car I drive is not a major consideration in the decision of which car to buy.
For most people I know, myself included, other people's perceptions of the car I drive is not a major consideration in the decision of which car to buy.
The next time you stop at a motorway service station, have a look at some of the people around you.
Would you like them to be approaching you at 120mph? Would you like to be approaching them at 120mph? Could you be sure that they'll act correctly?
As a colleague of mine used to say "motorway driving is basically formation flying with complete strangers".
Would you like them to be approaching you at 120mph? Would you like to be approaching them at 120mph? Could you be sure that they'll act correctly?
As a colleague of mine used to say "motorway driving is basically formation flying with complete strangers".
The problem with speeding is not really the speed.
If everyone drove at 90mph then the motorways would be safer than at present.
bear with me here . . .
The problem is SPEED DIFFERENTIAL
when some people travel at 50mph on a motorway then someone doing 90 is carrying a 40mph speed differential.
Of course its easier to slow the fast drivers down than to tell the clods at 50mph that they are a liability because they aren't actually breaking any laws.
If everyone drove at 90mph then the motorways would be safer than at present.
bear with me here . . .
The problem is SPEED DIFFERENTIAL
when some people travel at 50mph on a motorway then someone doing 90 is carrying a 40mph speed differential.
Of course its easier to slow the fast drivers down than to tell the clods at 50mph that they are a liability because they aren't actually breaking any laws.
I don't really accept the need for "speeding offences" to exist either. A ton of metal and glass moving at 30mph is lethal. Of course in some very crude sense increasing the speed makes it more dangerous but the logical conclusion of that argument is that cars should not move at all.
Nobody wants to crash, few people are truly blase about crashing. Speed limits give many people a get out clause - the notion that provided they were not speeding they were driving safely. Forcing them to think for themselves how to actively avoid having an accident by removing this false comfort can only be a good thing.
Nobody wants to crash, few people are truly blase about crashing. Speed limits give many people a get out clause - the notion that provided they were not speeding they were driving safely. Forcing them to think for themselves how to actively avoid having an accident by removing this false comfort can only be a good thing.
AJS- said:
I don't really accept the need for "speeding offences" to exist either. A ton of metal and glass moving at 30mph is lethal. Of course in some very crude sense increasing the speed makes it more dangerous but the logical conclusion of that argument is that cars should not move at all.
Nobody wants to crash, few people are truly blase about crashing. Speed limits give many people a get out clause - the notion that provided they were not speeding they were driving safely. Forcing them to think for themselves how to actively avoid having an accident by removing this false comfort can only be a good thing.
As a pedestrian, would you like to cross a road which had no speed limit?Nobody wants to crash, few people are truly blase about crashing. Speed limits give many people a get out clause - the notion that provided they were not speeding they were driving safely. Forcing them to think for themselves how to actively avoid having an accident by removing this false comfort can only be a good thing.
Would you like your children to cross an unlimited road?
There may be some people who make the assumption that sticking to a speed limit is the only thing they have to do to remain safe, but there are an equal number of idiots who, on an unlimited road, would decide that, as there is no limit, they can drife as fast as they like.
Incidentally, I am personally in favour of a slight raising of the motorway speed limit, possibly along the lines of the French system, which has two upper limits depending on weather conditions.
R_U_LOCAL said:
AJS- said:
I don't really accept the need for "speeding offences" to exist either. A ton of metal and glass moving at 30mph is lethal. Of course in some very crude sense increasing the speed makes it more dangerous but the logical conclusion of that argument is that cars should not move at all.
Nobody wants to crash, few people are truly blase about crashing. Speed limits give many people a get out clause - the notion that provided they were not speeding they were driving safely. Forcing them to think for themselves how to actively avoid having an accident by removing this false comfort can only be a good thing.
As a pedestrian, would you like to cross a road which had no speed limit?Nobody wants to crash, few people are truly blase about crashing. Speed limits give many people a get out clause - the notion that provided they were not speeding they were driving safely. Forcing them to think for themselves how to actively avoid having an accident by removing this false comfort can only be a good thing.
Would you like your children to cross an unlimited road?
There may be some people who make the assumption that sticking to a speed limit is the only thing they have to do to remain safe, but there are an equal number of idiots who, on an unlimited road, would decide that, as there is no limit, they can drife as fast as they like.
Incidentally, I am personally in favour of a slight raising of the motorway speed limit, possibly along the lines of the French system, which has two upper limits depending on weather conditions.
tigger1 said:
oldsoak said:
AJS- said:
A modern car in good condition is safer cruising on the motorway at 100mph than any 1960s car at 70mph, yet the limits have been lowered and the enforcement of them stepped up relentlessly. On quiet, dry motorways in the right car with a competent drive, 120 is quite manageable.
Not in my 206 it ain't! Not even downhill with a following wind!But then speed limits should never apply to those with high powered speed machines they should be able to do whatever speed they wish of course.
Hopefully they are better drivers than us and are able to avoid us mere mortals as we tramp along at 70-90 ish...If they fail and wipe us slower motorists out, who is gonna re-populate the planet after we are gone or isn't it true what 'they' say...'big car little prick'?
Perhaps "graded" limits, where certain car / driver combinations are allowed to drive with a higher limit on certain roads (much like lorries must go slower)?
You lost me there..care to elucidate?
I would be happy to have a picnic and a game of cricket on an unrestricted road in the right circumstances. That is when you can see far enough up the road to get out of the way in time. To cross most roads is 20ft of tarmac, and takes seconds. If you can see a reasonable way up the road then you have absolutely no chance of getting hit by a car. And if you're driving and you can't see far enough ahead to stop in such circumstances then you're not driving safely, regardless of speedlimits. That applies at 30 or 130
I don't have children, but I'd be much happier for them to cross an unrestricted open country road than to have to pick their way through bendy buses and so forth on a busy city street.
I don't have children, but I'd be much happier for them to cross an unrestricted open country road than to have to pick their way through bendy buses and so forth on a busy city street.
AJS- said:
Nobody wants to crash, few people are truly blase about crashing. Speed limits give many people a get out clause - the notion that provided they were not speeding they were driving safely. Forcing them to think for themselves how to actively avoid having an accident by removing this false comfort can only be a good thing.
An excellent point. I think you're absolutely right when you say that the average motorist who trundles along within the speed limit is often deluded into thinking that they are driving safely because the law says so and it is therefore somehow officially safe. Many motorists, often non-enthusiasts, fall into this trap, stop thinking for themselves and fail to see the downsides or indeed the weaknesses in their own driving because of this cotton wool wrap. ETA: I nominate my father as a prime example of an atrocious driver at sub NSL speeds. On the road he is almost oblivious to other road users, stubborn, unstimulated, joyless and at times an annoyance and danger, yet he is still safe in his eyes because he is within the law.
Edited by torres del paine on Monday 15th October 15:43
I drive a lot in Germany , on the de-restricted autobahn it can be best desribed as a scary event when you are pulling out and overtaking at 110 .
Pulling out almost needs a rear facing over the horizon radar at this speed . I do not know what speed UK traffic cars are doing when they come past with all lights and sirens on , but whatever goes past here is doing a lot more kph than anything I have seen in UK .
They do come from nowhere when they are over 150..160 mph
The noise some from the big BMW and Mercs is loud .They cease to sound like normal motors at this speed , it can be a little distracting.
The shock wave , even when in nearside lane when some of these pocket rockets go past they make your car move even though there is 1 clear lane between you and them.
If they do ever increase UK limits anything over 90 will need a few drivers to have a serious re-education on habbits .
Pulling out almost needs a rear facing over the horizon radar at this speed . I do not know what speed UK traffic cars are doing when they come past with all lights and sirens on , but whatever goes past here is doing a lot more kph than anything I have seen in UK .
They do come from nowhere when they are over 150..160 mph
The noise some from the big BMW and Mercs is loud .They cease to sound like normal motors at this speed , it can be a little distracting.
The shock wave , even when in nearside lane when some of these pocket rockets go past they make your car move even though there is 1 clear lane between you and them.
If they do ever increase UK limits anything over 90 will need a few drivers to have a serious re-education on habbits .
Edited by DPX on Monday 15th October 15:39
In my fairly limited experience of the autobahns, most people cruise round about 90-100 anyway. Driving much faster than this takes concentration, it's hard on the car and chews fuel. 120 if you're in a hurry, and above that is, I freely admit, quite dangerous on an open road.
Did I go to the wrong bits?
Did I go to the wrong bits?
Inspiring stuff, AJS, I was beginning to feel like the only nutter in the madhouse who took this eminently desirable position.
It is true that a zeitgeist of lowest common denominatorism has been nurtured and this alone has spawned the unquestioning creed of speed is bad.
As Yoda would say, "we need to unlearn what we have learned."
It is true that a zeitgeist of lowest common denominatorism has been nurtured and this alone has spawned the unquestioning creed of speed is bad.
As Yoda would say, "we need to unlearn what we have learned."
mark69sheer said:
R_U_LOCAL said:
AJS- said:
I don't really accept the need for "speeding offences" to exist either. A ton of metal and glass moving at 30mph is lethal. Of course in some very crude sense increasing the speed makes it more dangerous but the logical conclusion of that argument is that cars should not move at all.
Nobody wants to crash, few people are truly blase about crashing. Speed limits give many people a get out clause - the notion that provided they were not speeding they were driving safely. Forcing them to think for themselves how to actively avoid having an accident by removing this false comfort can only be a good thing.
As a pedestrian, would you like to cross a road which had no speed limit?Nobody wants to crash, few people are truly blase about crashing. Speed limits give many people a get out clause - the notion that provided they were not speeding they were driving safely. Forcing them to think for themselves how to actively avoid having an accident by removing this false comfort can only be a good thing.
Would you like your children to cross an unlimited road?
There may be some people who make the assumption that sticking to a speed limit is the only thing they have to do to remain safe, but there are an equal number of idiots who, on an unlimited road, would decide that, as there is no limit, they can drife as fast as they like.
Incidentally, I am personally in favour of a slight raising of the motorway speed limit, possibly along the lines of the French system, which has two upper limits depending on weather conditions.
No - if you want to compare the Isle of Man, then it'd be unfair to leave out the TT week.
R_U_LOCAL said:
The next time you stop at a motorway service station, have a look at some of the people around you.
Would you like them to be approaching you at 120mph? Would you like to be approaching them at 120mph? Could you be sure that they'll act correctly?
As a colleague of mine used to say "motorway driving is basically formation flying with complete strangers".
Yeah, I used to think we should raise the motorway speed limits - until I suddenly realised the number of idiots on the motorways seems to be growing on a daily basis - there were people driving at 70/80ph that terrified me, i would hate to see what happens if you speed that up by even 10-20mph...Would you like them to be approaching you at 120mph? Would you like to be approaching them at 120mph? Could you be sure that they'll act correctly?
As a colleague of mine used to say "motorway driving is basically formation flying with complete strangers".
carnage.
First things first, we need to sort out the problem with plebs* behind the wheel - then we can look at raising the speed limits
* this of course discounts 90% of PHers, being car enthusiasts i'd say the majority of you are better drivers than the general population
derestrictor said:
Inspiring stuff, AJS, I was beginning to feel like the only nutter in the madhouse who took this eminently desirable position.
It is true that a zeitgeist of lowest common denominatorism has been nurtured and this alone has spawned the unquestioning creed of speed is bad.
As Yoda would say, "we need to unlearn what we have learned."
Unfortunately we have to come down to the lowest common denominator , we have no choice.It is true that a zeitgeist of lowest common denominatorism has been nurtured and this alone has spawned the unquestioning creed of speed is bad.
As Yoda would say, "we need to unlearn what we have learned."
At each end of the scale Madness lies.
Motorways were unlimited in this country until some motorists decided thay would use tham as unnoficial test tracks.
For the safety of 'themselves' the speeding laws were introduced.
So who would be responsible for issueing 'super licences' to those deemed to be capable?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff