RE: Dangerous Driving Reviewed
Friday 8th February 2002
Dangerous Driving Reviewed
Excessive speeding to result in dangerous driving convictions?
Discussion
Absolutely Right - Reckless exceeding of the speed limit should result in draconian penalties - where the speed limit is itself sensible. Great attention should be paid to excessive speed in residential areas, less to speed infractions on empty motorways with dry roads.
Before implementing new enforcement measures, perhaps we should have a review of speed limit policy. What about limits that vary up as well as down? What about speed limits based on the make and model of car. I'm sure a McLaren F1 is a damn site safer at 70 MPH than a Fiat Seicento, so why not limit the Fiat to 70 and the McLaren to 120?
Before implementing new enforcement measures, perhaps we should have a review of speed limit policy. What about limits that vary up as well as down? What about speed limits based on the make and model of car. I'm sure a McLaren F1 is a damn site safer at 70 MPH than a Fiat Seicento, so why not limit the Fiat to 70 and the McLaren to 120?
I agree with Jasper, although he defeats his argument by suggesting a McLaren F!, as it is safer at high speeds, should be allowed to drive faster!
I have been roundly abused in another thread for suggesting that a guy who said there he had been caught doing 120, deserves all he gets.
I am a member of the IAM, one advantage of which is that, at least, you have to drive safely before you can qualify, e.g. within the speed limit. For many people out there, the idea of actually obeying all speed limits (one transgression may be allowed during a two hour IAM test, and 30 is 30, not 31/2)is wholly novel. It takes a lot of getting used to, and a great deal of reinforced discipline to observe. It is surely incontrovertible that the faster you drive, a) the more dangerous you are, since b) the less you are able to stop in time. How many people are aware, for example, that allowing for an average car length of 15', the number of car lengths it takes a car to stop from 70 is around 20.
Gibson
I have been roundly abused in another thread for suggesting that a guy who said there he had been caught doing 120, deserves all he gets.
I am a member of the IAM, one advantage of which is that, at least, you have to drive safely before you can qualify, e.g. within the speed limit. For many people out there, the idea of actually obeying all speed limits (one transgression may be allowed during a two hour IAM test, and 30 is 30, not 31/2)is wholly novel. It takes a lot of getting used to, and a great deal of reinforced discipline to observe. It is surely incontrovertible that the faster you drive, a) the more dangerous you are, since b) the less you are able to stop in time. How many people are aware, for example, that allowing for an average car length of 15', the number of car lengths it takes a car to stop from 70 is around 20.
Gibson
But if you are on a motorway, the object you are most likely to hit is not the car in front, but the armco or the car at the side of you as they are only 4' away! 
The faster you drive the bigger the gap you leave between you and the vehicle in front - common sense really. However, I know a lot of people who seem lacking this common sense - hopefully natural selection will weed them all out.
At 70mph I usually leave about a 50m gap - or what looks like 50m as I have noticed that 10m is not very far when travelling at 100mph by fine at 30mph (taxis in Frankfurt).
I know I can stop from 70mph in less than 150' time after time after time. Unfortunately the guy behind me may only be able to stop after 200', 250' or even 315' (as per highway code #105).
The point of this being that the speed is almost irrelevant. The manoeuvring space (or safety cell) is what is required and is what is being ignored.
How many pedestrians get convicted for walking across roads at unauthorised spots rather than walking 20m to the zebra, pelican, puffin, toucan, whatever crossing or from between parked cars? The highway code relates to them as well, but if someone gets knocked down then the first thing we hear is that the driver was going to fast and then that we need to reduce speed limits.
>> Edited by M-Five on Friday 8th February 10:45
The faster you drive the bigger the gap you leave between you and the vehicle in front - common sense really. However, I know a lot of people who seem lacking this common sense - hopefully natural selection will weed them all out.
At 70mph I usually leave about a 50m gap - or what looks like 50m as I have noticed that 10m is not very far when travelling at 100mph by fine at 30mph (taxis in Frankfurt).
I know I can stop from 70mph in less than 150' time after time after time. Unfortunately the guy behind me may only be able to stop after 200', 250' or even 315' (as per highway code #105).
The point of this being that the speed is almost irrelevant. The manoeuvring space (or safety cell) is what is required and is what is being ignored.
How many pedestrians get convicted for walking across roads at unauthorised spots rather than walking 20m to the zebra, pelican, puffin, toucan, whatever crossing or from between parked cars? The highway code relates to them as well, but if someone gets knocked down then the first thing we hear is that the driver was going to fast and then that we need to reduce speed limits.
>> Edited by M-Five on Friday 8th February 10:45
quote:
It is surely incontrovertible that the faster you drive, a) the more dangerous you are, since b) the less you are able to stop in time. How many people are aware, for example, that allowing for an average car length of 15', the number of car lengths it takes a car to stop from 70 is around 20.
Oh come on, it's nowhere near that simple. You've been brainwashed by the 'stick to the limit and you'll be all right' brigade.
I'd suggest that it is incontravertible that the less attention you pay the more dangerous you are. To imply that speed is the sole factor in safety is what riles most poeople here. I'm not condoning misue of speed, just the blind-acceptance of Govt mantra on the subject that prevents a rational debate on the real issue of safe driving, not slow driving.
>> Edited by PetrolTed (moderator) on Friday 8th February 10:59
What do people think of the idea, as proposed by Dr. Richard North, in his paper "Unsafe at any speed", about the idea for an "advanced" driving licence. This is for people, like xylophone, who have taken the trouble to further their driving skills, and so are rewarded with a licence that allows them to drive at 90, max., on motorways, whilst having to obey all limits in urban areas? Good Idea? Licence to kill? What?
I imagine that IAM members would be sufficiently skilled at making rapid, safe progress, that the need for a higher speed limit is unnecessary, but some might like to use their skills to maximum effect.
>> Edited by nubbin on Friday 8th February 11:06
I imagine that IAM members would be sufficiently skilled at making rapid, safe progress, that the need for a higher speed limit is unnecessary, but some might like to use their skills to maximum effect.
>> Edited by nubbin on Friday 8th February 11:06
Personally I think that is a highly viable solution. Where an advanced driving certificate would be a 'get out of jail free' card upto a certain threshold.
As I see it the current test is deficient in all but 30mph zones. It teaches you to drive safely (ish) in traffic while taking due diligence over other road users, it doesnt teach one how to drive.
The only issue with implementing such a scheme would be the extra money to administer it and the money lost in speed tax, and as such, we will probably never see it.
Matt.
As I see it the current test is deficient in all but 30mph zones. It teaches you to drive safely (ish) in traffic while taking due diligence over other road users, it doesnt teach one how to drive.
The only issue with implementing such a scheme would be the extra money to administer it and the money lost in speed tax, and as such, we will probably never see it.
Matt.
I see the danger with the current proposal being that the Govt will introduce a guideline like '30mph over the limit' will be considered dangerous driving. Fine in a 30/40/50/60 limit, but on a motorway in the right conditions...? And isn't dangerous driving a criminal offence - huge implications.
The problem with an "Advanced" Licence is that it is difficult to tell from outside the car who has one and who doesn't....can't work.
Xylophone. I am doing the IAM thing at the moment and the views you are expressing are not quite what I've been told! You are quite right in that in a test environment you will be expected to drive at the speed limit. That is - there must be a good reason for failing to achieve that speed...and you should not exceed it.
However. I wish to achieve my Advanced Driving qualification because of the excellent observation and driving methods training the IAM provide which will make me a safer driver - and has already even though I have not yet passed.
BUT. I cannot ever subscribe to the view that speed itself is dangerous. Otherwise I would not have got on Concorde! Driving with inappropriate speed (whether above OR BELOW the limit) is bloody dangerous. i.e. Not leaving enough space around the car. Excessive speed prior to turn in at a corner. Excessive acceleration coming out of a corner. etc etc. Inappropriate speed can also be achieved by driving in a manner that is not consistent with usual practice. e.g. Driving at 50mph around a roundabout (my Porsche will do it - I don't) no-one expects this to be possible and therefore will not expect the car to arrive so close to them so quickly. It is EQUALLY dangerous to plod along on the motorway at 30mph. Technically legal but obviously utterly unsafe as drivers will not expect a car to be practically stationary on the M-bleedin-4.
I would much rather see a campaign based around "Use Speed Wisely", "Be courteous", "Its not a race - relax", than "Speed Kills" - because it doesn't. Not by itself.
Xylophone. I am doing the IAM thing at the moment and the views you are expressing are not quite what I've been told! You are quite right in that in a test environment you will be expected to drive at the speed limit. That is - there must be a good reason for failing to achieve that speed...and you should not exceed it.
However. I wish to achieve my Advanced Driving qualification because of the excellent observation and driving methods training the IAM provide which will make me a safer driver - and has already even though I have not yet passed.
BUT. I cannot ever subscribe to the view that speed itself is dangerous. Otherwise I would not have got on Concorde! Driving with inappropriate speed (whether above OR BELOW the limit) is bloody dangerous. i.e. Not leaving enough space around the car. Excessive speed prior to turn in at a corner. Excessive acceleration coming out of a corner. etc etc. Inappropriate speed can also be achieved by driving in a manner that is not consistent with usual practice. e.g. Driving at 50mph around a roundabout (my Porsche will do it - I don't) no-one expects this to be possible and therefore will not expect the car to arrive so close to them so quickly. It is EQUALLY dangerous to plod along on the motorway at 30mph. Technically legal but obviously utterly unsafe as drivers will not expect a car to be practically stationary on the M-bleedin-4.
I would much rather see a campaign based around "Use Speed Wisely", "Be courteous", "Its not a race - relax", than "Speed Kills" - because it doesn't. Not by itself.
I dont think seeing who has one and who doesnt is really the issue. If you got flashed at say 85mph, just send off your 'I'm licensed to drive at 90mph' card and the NIP would be dropped.
IAM, in my opinion, is all about the observation. The speed kills lobby would also say that driving on the other side of the road kills, but IAM readily teach using all the road in the right conditions if it allows you a better view of the road.
The problem is one of the perception of safety, the uneducated say that speed is unsafe, the people who have been trained otherwise say it is. Until everyone is trained there will never be agreement.
PS 30mph on a motorway is illegal, minimum limit is 40mph but as we dont post that on signs anywhere, how are they going to know.
Matt.
>> Edited by plotloss on Friday 8th February 11:30
IAM, in my opinion, is all about the observation. The speed kills lobby would also say that driving on the other side of the road kills, but IAM readily teach using all the road in the right conditions if it allows you a better view of the road.
The problem is one of the perception of safety, the uneducated say that speed is unsafe, the people who have been trained otherwise say it is. Until everyone is trained there will never be agreement.
PS 30mph on a motorway is illegal, minimum limit is 40mph but as we dont post that on signs anywhere, how are they going to know.
Matt.
>> Edited by plotloss on Friday 8th February 11:30
I agrre - everyone who has actually thought about road safety, as opposed to a knee jerk reaction, has realised that it is inappropriate driving bevaiour, with or without speed, that is the problem. But, as I've said before, it only needs a camera to catch a speeder - it takes a lot of (expensive) training to make a good driver. Therein lies the problem. Who pays? The Govt. won't, and the people who like to drive badly won't, so we all get hoist by the same petard, tarred with the same brush, etc. WRITE TO YOUR M.P., expressing your feelings. Do it NOW, so they actually get a feling of grass roots majority opinion. If we doin't start speaking out, in 5 years time, it will simply not be worth owning these beautiful, fast cars we all love
I wonder if this exensive and fabulous government report made any recommendations on who was best qualified to identify instances of 'dangerous driving' - a grey box perched on top of a post or a copper?
Obvious, of course, and I'm sure we'll see that reflected out there on the roads - NOT.
Obvious, of course, and I'm sure we'll see that reflected out there on the roads - NOT.
It's Friday so I'm going to come over all scientific.
Speed doesn't kill. Change in speed, ie. acceleration (usually negative) can kill but this is rare in road accidents. The human body can survive very high G forces for short periods.
What kills in road accidents is the kinetic energy of the vehicle(s) involved which needs to go somehere when the vehicle is brought to rest. When you brake to a halt, this energy is dissipated as heat through the vehicle's brakes, if you lock it up it goes through the tyres, if you drive in to a wall it is absorbed by the structure of the vehicle while deforming, again ultimately ending up as heat (keep bending a paperclip and it gets warm).
Sadly, the occupants count as part of the structure of the vehicle and having to absorb energy through deformation is not something the human body is very good at. It's not ductile and it tends to break. That is why car design focuses on absorbing as much energy as possible in deformable structures. This also has the advantage of reducing the G loading as you come to rest over a greater distance.
Now, as any fule know, kinetic energy goes up with the square of velocity. Drive twice as fast, four times the kinetic energy to lose. So, for anyone who has stuck through this boring essay the conclusions are simple.
a) drive as fast as you like, but always be thinking about how you are going to lose all those joules - make sure it's through brakes and tyres, not through you or the poor schmuk who walks out in front of you
b) "Speed kills" is utter bollo**s
Have a nice weekend
Steve
Speed doesn't kill. Change in speed, ie. acceleration (usually negative) can kill but this is rare in road accidents. The human body can survive very high G forces for short periods.
What kills in road accidents is the kinetic energy of the vehicle(s) involved which needs to go somehere when the vehicle is brought to rest. When you brake to a halt, this energy is dissipated as heat through the vehicle's brakes, if you lock it up it goes through the tyres, if you drive in to a wall it is absorbed by the structure of the vehicle while deforming, again ultimately ending up as heat (keep bending a paperclip and it gets warm).
Sadly, the occupants count as part of the structure of the vehicle and having to absorb energy through deformation is not something the human body is very good at. It's not ductile and it tends to break. That is why car design focuses on absorbing as much energy as possible in deformable structures. This also has the advantage of reducing the G loading as you come to rest over a greater distance.
Now, as any fule know, kinetic energy goes up with the square of velocity. Drive twice as fast, four times the kinetic energy to lose. So, for anyone who has stuck through this boring essay the conclusions are simple.
a) drive as fast as you like, but always be thinking about how you are going to lose all those joules - make sure it's through brakes and tyres, not through you or the poor schmuk who walks out in front of you
b) "Speed kills" is utter bollo**s
Have a nice weekend
Steve
The advanced licence idea sounds good at first but;
How would it be policed, plod would pull you for speeding - find you had the A grade and say 'sorry for wasting your time sir' or would they nick you for something else, ie undue care (cos you were scaring ordinary licence holders).
How would the robot revenue generators know not to take a picture?
It wouldn't work on most roads as you would have ordinary traffice holding you up - unless two Jags would build you your own lane !
What I think does work is the system you get in France where the limit is set at say 85 mph on motorways and reduces to 70 mph in rainy conditions. What do you think?
How would it be policed, plod would pull you for speeding - find you had the A grade and say 'sorry for wasting your time sir' or would they nick you for something else, ie undue care (cos you were scaring ordinary licence holders).
How would the robot revenue generators know not to take a picture?
It wouldn't work on most roads as you would have ordinary traffice holding you up - unless two Jags would build you your own lane !
What I think does work is the system you get in France where the limit is set at say 85 mph on motorways and reduces to 70 mph in rainy conditions. What do you think?
I agree with Ted.
And I still reckon IAM = Foolishly believing that you are better than other people because of a poxy test.
Please forgive me dragging up the past again, but an IAM qualified bloke at work used to drink-drive, and have the worst "gear-sense" and "vehicle-sympathy" of any person I have been unlucky enough to sit with.
Some preaching IAM drivers can go get stuffed. Bleating away on their high horse about how to drive. Useless - a lot of stuff they teach is utter crap.
Sorry!
Carl
And I still reckon IAM = Foolishly believing that you are better than other people because of a poxy test.
Please forgive me dragging up the past again, but an IAM qualified bloke at work used to drink-drive, and have the worst "gear-sense" and "vehicle-sympathy" of any person I have been unlucky enough to sit with.
Some preaching IAM drivers can go get stuffed. Bleating away on their high horse about how to drive. Useless - a lot of stuff they teach is utter crap.
Sorry!
Carl
quote:
What do people think of the idea, as proposed by Dr. Richard North, in his paper "Unsafe at any speed", about the idea for an "advanced" driving licence. This is for people, like xylophone, who have taken the trouble to further their driving skills, and so are rewarded with a licence that allows them to drive at 90, max., on motorways, whilst having to obey all limits in urban areas? Good Idea? Licence to kill? What?
I imagine that IAM members would be sufficiently skilled at making rapid, safe progress, that the need for a higher speed limit is unnecessary, but some might like to use their skills to maximum effect.
BOLLOCKS! I've taken the time to further my driving skills by jumping in my car everyday to go where ever I need to go. I call it experience. Its a hard graft at times but I'm doing alright.
Agreeing with what Hertsbiker said, some IAM members are coming across a elite super heros with a dangerous superiority complex.
quote:
It is surely incontrovertible that the faster you drive, a) the more dangerous you are, since b) the less you are able to stop in time
Really ?? So if I drive at 30mph with my eyes closed I am fine/safe because I am at the 'limit' (This could explain the driving abilities of those mums on the school run)
Less able to stop in time ? My Chimaera will outbrake a metro most days I reckon. A 911 can stop in a blisteringly short space of time(and far shorter than the 315ft in Highway code too), but the Landrover 2ft from its a**e would plough straight into it.....
So you have passed the IAM and still Blindly believe the untruthful soundbite speed kills. A shame.
If speeding is soooooo murderous then why are plod permitted to exceed the speed limit on a call ? You are just as dead either way by the excessive and inappropriate speed.
I am also quite confused why so much time and revenue is spent to reduce speed and the 3000 accidents p.a. when how many people are killed by smoking each year ? How much NHS time and money is spent on them ??
But, regardless of how well you drive, would you get an advanced certificate if it allowed you to, up to a certain point, be immune to Gatso's?
Speed kills is an obvious statement, if I hit something at 100mph as opposed to 1mph then obviously there is more energy to dispose of. The reason that the 'speed kills' sentiments are being pushed by certain members of government and the annoying public at large is because its all their tiny minds can cope with, god forbid they would learn elementary physics that could help them understand why a car travelling quickly requires a larger space to turn around in than a car travelling slowly.
I dont doubt that there are many drivers out there that are well beyond the standard that IAM examines to fair play, so then passing the IAM test to allow you to go faster shouldnt be an issue. I personally believe that I can always be taught more about driving, because I believe that you never stop learning.
Its down to personal choice I suppose. I think IAM has a place in this world to train people to drive safely to a presribed set of rules, just as the normal test does. Its a lot more encompassing though and does teach some good principals. Same goes for RoSPA and any others there are. I dont think however that there view of driving is neccesarily correct as different people see things in different ways. Its all down to personal choice, but a large part of fleet management these days involves accident management as well, and their prescribed solution is training, and of the companies that do it, it serves its purpose - damage limitation. So there must be something in it.
Matt
Speed kills is an obvious statement, if I hit something at 100mph as opposed to 1mph then obviously there is more energy to dispose of. The reason that the 'speed kills' sentiments are being pushed by certain members of government and the annoying public at large is because its all their tiny minds can cope with, god forbid they would learn elementary physics that could help them understand why a car travelling quickly requires a larger space to turn around in than a car travelling slowly.
I dont doubt that there are many drivers out there that are well beyond the standard that IAM examines to fair play, so then passing the IAM test to allow you to go faster shouldnt be an issue. I personally believe that I can always be taught more about driving, because I believe that you never stop learning.
Its down to personal choice I suppose. I think IAM has a place in this world to train people to drive safely to a presribed set of rules, just as the normal test does. Its a lot more encompassing though and does teach some good principals. Same goes for RoSPA and any others there are. I dont think however that there view of driving is neccesarily correct as different people see things in different ways. Its all down to personal choice, but a large part of fleet management these days involves accident management as well, and their prescribed solution is training, and of the companies that do it, it serves its purpose - damage limitation. So there must be something in it.
Matt
quote:
The reason that the 'speed kills' sentiments are being pushed by certain members of government and the annoying public at large is because its all their tiny minds can cope with, god forbid they would learn elementary physics that could help them understand why a car travelling quickly requires a larger space to turn around in than a car travelling slowly
Too true, that and the fact that they think making everyone travel at 1mph is the cheapest way of reducing the cost of road accidents. i.e. -> Lower speed collisions = less insurance cost, less cops required to clean up less people to cart to hospital.
Whats not taken into account is that
1. The fastest roads have the lowest accident rates (motorways).
2. Cars these days still cost 1000's to fix even in very low speed collisions. (cos they are build to deform, and garages take the pi** on insurance jobs)
3. Everyone is by and large badly trained to cope with driving conditions that are anything but mundane, hence a large pergentage of accidnets happen at night/bad weather.
Seems to me that an accountant in Whitehall made a daft calculation that suggests that average speed is directly proportinate to the cost of motor accidents..
grrrr
sorry just had to get that one off my chest (again)... To elaborate on my first reply, which contained my simple comments, I quote (non-selectively) from the publication 'Police Roadcraft: The Police Driver's Handbook,' which has been adopted by the IAM. My edition is dated 1994.
1. Page 6
Attitudes to speed
The speed at which you drive is one of the most important factors in determining your risk of having an accident. The faster you go, the less chance you have of taking avoiding action, and the greater your risk of having an accident. Speed is largely a matter of choice - Good driving requires you to drive at a speed that is safe for the conditions.
2. Page 67
The safe stopping distance rule
Never drive so fast you cannot stop comfortably on your side of the road within the distance you can see to be clear.
3. Page 68
Overall safe stopping distance...
Thinking distance + Braking distance = Stopping distance
...96m (is) the ...shortest stopping distance at...70mph.
4. Speed and Safety
Page 163
...International evidence clearly shows that lower speed limits result in fewer accidents...drivers who drive fast regardless of the circumstances have an accident risk 3 to 5 times greater than those who do not. At greater speeds the risks obviously increase - you approach hazards faster, you have less time to react, and the impact danger is greater.
...your speed, if it is inappropriate in the circumstances,...is dangerous. This concept is central to the system of car control...
Page 164
Always drive within your competence, at a speed which is appropriate to the circumstances...As you become more experienced your level of confidence may increase but this will not necessarily make you a safer driver. You will only be safe if you also develop appropriate attitudes
Speed Limits
Statutory speed limits set the maximum permissible speed, but that is not the same thing as a safe speed...(which) is determined by the conditions at the time...The onus is always on the driver to select a speed appropriate for the conditions
Page 165
How speed affects the driver
As you drive faster, the nearest point at which you can accurately focus moves away from you. Foreground details becomes blurred and observation more difficult because you have more information to process in less time...
Underestimating speed
It is easy to underestimate (this)...
...some common situations where speed perception can be distorted (include)...
When driving a vehicle that is smoother, quieter, or more powerful...it is easy to drive too fast...As well as sight and balance, you use other senses to assess speed: road noise, engine noise and vibration all play a part. When one or more of these is reduced, it can seem that you are going slower than you really are.
The only other comment I need to make (since the above deals with all of the critical replies to my initial reply), is that the charge against the IAM of elitism is patently absurd - these are simply people who take the trouble to try to drive better and more safely according to known and accepted standards in the Police Roadcraft Manual. Police advanced driving is of course a different thing entirely.
Gibson
1. Page 6
Attitudes to speed
The speed at which you drive is one of the most important factors in determining your risk of having an accident. The faster you go, the less chance you have of taking avoiding action, and the greater your risk of having an accident. Speed is largely a matter of choice - Good driving requires you to drive at a speed that is safe for the conditions.
2. Page 67
The safe stopping distance rule
Never drive so fast you cannot stop comfortably on your side of the road within the distance you can see to be clear.
3. Page 68
Overall safe stopping distance...
Thinking distance + Braking distance = Stopping distance
...96m (is) the ...shortest stopping distance at...70mph.
4. Speed and Safety
Page 163
...International evidence clearly shows that lower speed limits result in fewer accidents...drivers who drive fast regardless of the circumstances have an accident risk 3 to 5 times greater than those who do not. At greater speeds the risks obviously increase - you approach hazards faster, you have less time to react, and the impact danger is greater.
...your speed, if it is inappropriate in the circumstances,...is dangerous. This concept is central to the system of car control...
Page 164
Always drive within your competence, at a speed which is appropriate to the circumstances...As you become more experienced your level of confidence may increase but this will not necessarily make you a safer driver. You will only be safe if you also develop appropriate attitudes
Speed Limits
Statutory speed limits set the maximum permissible speed, but that is not the same thing as a safe speed...(which) is determined by the conditions at the time...The onus is always on the driver to select a speed appropriate for the conditions
Page 165
How speed affects the driver
As you drive faster, the nearest point at which you can accurately focus moves away from you. Foreground details becomes blurred and observation more difficult because you have more information to process in less time...
Underestimating speed
It is easy to underestimate (this)...
...some common situations where speed perception can be distorted (include)...
When driving a vehicle that is smoother, quieter, or more powerful...it is easy to drive too fast...As well as sight and balance, you use other senses to assess speed: road noise, engine noise and vibration all play a part. When one or more of these is reduced, it can seem that you are going slower than you really are.
The only other comment I need to make (since the above deals with all of the critical replies to my initial reply), is that the charge against the IAM of elitism is patently absurd - these are simply people who take the trouble to try to drive better and more safely according to known and accepted standards in the Police Roadcraft Manual. Police advanced driving is of course a different thing entirely.
Gibson
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff