So I Got Done For Speeding...

[kazsymonds]

...I'm just trying to stop you lumping everybody together as being the same. Which I seem to have managed.

Other than that I pretty much agree with everything else you and Krynn are saying. Even if both of you seem to be a little too self-righteous about it.

You haven't achieved anything, i said a few posts up that there are circumstances where the conditions dictate that to be a good driver, you have to exceed the speed limit.

 

[kazsymonds]

Here is another one for you.

Person A is driving on a motorway at 6am on clear dry Sunday morning,very few vehicles on the road.
They are travelling at 100mph.

Person B is driving on the same motorway in winter at a busy period,
weaving in and out of traffic at 70mph.

Who is more dangerous?


I'm just trying to stop you lumping everybody together as being the same. Which I seem to have managed.

Other than that I pretty much agree with everything else you and Krynn are saying. Even if both of you seem to be a little too self-righteous about it.

I wouldn't say I'm qualified to answer that one, but here goes;

Person B's situation is more inherently dangerous.

Person A is taking a liberty and a gamble, but it's a pretty small one. Person A is also at risk of not taking the situation seriously.

Morally speaking, A should slow down, B should pick a lane and stay there and match the speed of the traffic. All IMO of course.

 

[Druckles]

I agree with Koola.

 

[Bad^Hat]

There is no situation.

Uhh, hello?

 

[Minister]

I wouldn't say I'm qualified to answer that one, but here goes;

Person B's situation is more inherently dangerous.

Person A is taking a liberty and a gamble, but it's a pretty small one. Person A is also at risk of not taking the situation seriously.

Morally speaking, A should slow down, B should pick a lane and stay there and match the speed of the traffic. All IMO of course.

The point I'm trying to make is that the speed limit should not be viewed as having zero flexibility. Common sense can tell you that Person B is putting far more people at risk (including themselves) than Person A.

During torrential rainfall trying to drive at the 70mph speed limit is dangerous. However, when the weather is good and the traffic conditions permit, driving at 80mph rather 70mph adds little more risk than driving at 70mph rather than 60mph. However, one is "illegal" and the other is not.

I'm only speaking about motorway driving here. Inner-city driving is obviously vastly different.

^ Again with the blatant hypocrisy.

It's not really. Going 20mph over the limit on a motorway is different than going 20mph over the limit on a residential street.

20mph over on a residential street should have harsher punishment that 20mph over on a motorway. I'm pretty sure that here in the UK that is the case already.


EDIT: If you meant hypocrisy over something else, I apologise.

 

[No Limit]

It's not really. Going 20mph over the limit on a motorway is different than going 20mph over the limit on a residential street.

20mph over on a residential street should have harsher punishment that 20mph over on a motorway. I'm pretty sure that here in the UK that is the case already.


EDIT: If you meant hypocrisy over something else, I apologise.

I meant his original statement that anyone who puts people at risk on the road for no reason is a complete twat. Apparently that only applies when you put people in danger in a way that he never does.

 

[repiV]

Taking highly complicated subjects and trying to reduce them into incredibly simplistic terms is stupid and highly inaccurate. I swear people are brainwashed when it comes to driving.

For example, "every 3mph over the speed limit doubles your chances of a fatal accident" is quite clearly total and utter nonsense. If you believe that 'fact', you a) don't really know much about driving and don't question anything you're told and/or b) have no common sense.

Speed in and of itself is meaningless until and unless you factor in the other elements of the equation - distance and reaction time. Assuming the vehicle is mechanically sound and the driver is competent, there is absolutely no danger whatsoever in travelling at 200mph on a straight, empty road with no junctions from which traffic could emerge - because there is nothing to collide with.

As a comparison, the idiots who travel on the motorway at between 65 and 80mph with a very insufficient gap between the car in front and who are paying very little attention to what is going on around them, hence leaving themselves little chance to avoid an accident in the event of an unexpected occurence (most of the driving population) are dangerous.

The guy who travels at well over 100 when traffic conditions permit and slows down to a speed which allows him to pass surrounding traffic safely when necessarily (you can't put a number on that, it's entirely situational - as what constitutes a safe speed ALWAYS is), and keeps a big gap between himself and the other traffic, is at no risk of an accident whatsoever providing he doesn't break the fundamental tenent of keeping his speed appropriate to the distance he keeps.

Now, let's take the third of the three factors I mentioned above - reaction time. It's a proven fact that if you drive for any period of time at a speed far below that which holds your fullest attention at all times, you lose concentration and hence awareness and reaction time - thus contributing to the accident risk. Slower can, in fact, be far more dangerous - not safer!

It's no coincidence that falling asleep at the wheel is one of the biggest causes of accidents on motorways.

Besides all of that, an anti-speed approach to road safety is counter-productive to both human nature and human progress. The inherently human love for and pursuit of speed is responsible for the advanced (and incredibly safe, for that matter) society that we have today, and should be harnessed - not prevented. What the hell else did we invent cars for in the first place, if not to get places quickly and have fun doing so?

Now, in terms of drink driving laws, having a couple of beers may cause a "slight impairment". Big deal. Being tired, stressed, distracted, bored, unhappy, or any number of thousands of other factors can also cause a "slight impairment". So saying that it's unacceptable to drive after a beer or two because that person may be slightly less good at driving is ludicrous. Why single out one factor of dozens?

If they're driving drunk, that's different - but two or three beers most definitely does not constitute drunk, in most people. And drink driving accidents are caused by people who are several times over the limit, not at or around it.

 

[Sulkdodds]

For example, "every 3mph over the speed limit doubles your chances of a fatal accident" is quite clearly total and utter nonsense. If you believe that 'fact', you a) don't really know much about driving and don't question anything you're told and/or b) have no common sense.

Speed in and of itself is meaningless until and unless you factor in the other elements of the equation - distance and reaction time. Assuming the vehicle is mechanically sound and the driver is competent, there is absolutely no danger whatsoever in travelling at 200mph on a straight, empty road with no junctions from which traffic could emerge - because there is nothing to collide with.

I don't know where the claim you mention is made, but, err, surely everybody is aware that such things usually refer to impact velocity? Obviously driving at top speed on a huge empty runway would be relatively safe. The issue is that faster driving increases the likelihood of fatality. I can readily believe that there's a 'dip' where one is going fast enough for crashes to be dangerous but too slow to be paying much attention. But that only relates to the likelihood of accident and it seems short-sighted to make the point without also addressing the other two parts of the equation: reaction times, and impact velocity.

I agree that having a higher BAC limit could be on the table, but it also seems like an issue that could be easily determined by extensive research.

 

[CyberPitz]

Am I the only one who came into this thread and knew RepiV would be here to tell everybody how stupid they are for following speed limits?

 

[repiV]

I don't know where the claim you mention is made, but, err, surely everybody is aware that such things usually refer to impact velocity? Obviously driving at top speed on a huge empty runway would be relatively safe. The issue is that faster driving increases the likelihood of fatality. I can readily believe that there's a 'dip' where one is going fast enough for crashes to be dangerous but too slow to be paying much attention. But that only relates to the likelihood of accident and it seems short-sighted to make the point without also addressing the other two parts of the equation: reaction times, and impact velocity.

Impact velocity is irrelevant if you don't HAVE an accident - and it should be relatively easy for a good driver who is willing to study and learn to avoid being involved in one. Besides which, impact velocity is almost always far lower than the free travelling speed, for two reasons. Firstly, because accidents don't just happen instantly - there is braking time beforehand. But also because accidents don't tend to happen where the traffic is flowing freely. It's not when you're doing 140mph down the autobahn that you'll crash, it's when all the traffic is congested and doing 50mph.

Anecdotal point - how often do you hear of people crashing at three figure speeds? Basically never. How often do people travel at three figure speeds? All the time! Just not necessarily when you're around to see it.

Motorways are ridiculously safe anyway. They account for 1% of all accidents and 3% of all fatalities on UK roads, despite being by far the fastest roads - whereas rural single-carriageway roads account for 66% of fatalities (and where the national speed limit is only 10mph lower, and on these roads ESPECIALLY irrelevant to actual safety because it's bends and bad overtaking that cause crashes).

So, if we chose our method and speed of travelling according to what would happen IF we had an accident, none of us would fly in aircraft, ride motorbikes or jetskis or even ride a bicycle in traffic. For me personally that line of thinking is incredibly dangerous anyway, because you can't relate accident damage with impact velocity so easily on a bike.

I know someone who nearly died in a 5mph accident because the car crushed him up against another car, and I know of somebody else who overtook in a stupid place on a rural road and had a high-speed head-on collision with a car. All the occupants were killed, but he was thrown far clear and landed gently in an adjacent field, slid to a stop and walked away basically unhurt. If you came off a bike and went into the side of a Range Rover at 30mph, you would almost certainly die.

The only sensible option is to avoid having an accident in the first place. And why should we hamper progress, innovation and freedom because of hypothetical "what ifs"? To the hobby driver, our attitude to speed is a little like telling a really good footballer they can only use 20% of their skill on the pitch, and never see the rewards for their own improvement. It's stupid.

I agree that having a higher BAC limit could be on the table, but it also seems like an issue that could be easily determined by extensive research.

Most likely.

Am I the only one who came into this thread and knew RepiV would be here to tell everybody how stupid they are for following speed limits?

Thanks for your intelligent contribution to the thread.

 

[No Limit]

When you crashed some years back and almost lost your life was speed a factor?

 

[Eejit]

This thread is a ****ing car crash.

 

[repiV]

When you crashed some years back and almost lost your life was speed a factor?

Both tyres simultaneously let go of the road in a bend, hence sending me flying into the tree, because the lean angle was too steep for the quality of the road surface (it was covered in fallen leaves, which were also wet on the underside, and I was too inexperienced to realise how dangerous they can be).

In a roundabout sort of way, you could call it "going too fast", but again that isn't a numerical thing and nor does it really address the root cause. On a bend half as sharp, it would have taken 25% more speed to cause the same accident. On a corner twice as severe, the same thing would have happened at a quarter of the speed. This based on the fact that when you double the speed, you quadruple the lean angle necessary to take the bend.

It all comes back to the need to use your judgement, not a speedometer. The best thing they could do for road safety would be to remove all speedos from all vehicles, so people would think about what they're doing. I had a broken speedo for 3 weeks once and it was fantastic and liberating, I never once felt the urge to look down and just got on with what I was doing.

Anyway, FYI I haven't come off a bike once since then. And I ride about 20,000 miles a year in all weathers.

 

[No Limit]

Just be careful out there man.

 

[Vegeta897]

It all comes back to the need to use your judgement, not a speedometer. The best thing they could do for road safety would be to remove all speedos from all vehicles, so people would think about what they're doing. I had a broken speedo for 3 weeks once and it was fantastic and liberating, I never once felt the urge to look down and just got on with what I was doing.

That's actually a very interesting thought. Sounds crazy at first but when you think about it, it might really help.

 

[CptStern]

The best thing they could do for road safety would be to remove all speedos from all vehicles, so people would think about what they're doing. .

that might work in your neck of the woods but might not work in north america where most people drive vehicles with automatic transmission. standard forces you to pay attention to speed (shifting gears)

 

[Pi Mu Rho]

You should be able to change gears by feel/sound, not by watching the speedo.

 

[CptStern]

that's what I mean. my first car (standard) had no speedo ..the word "shift" would light up where the speedometer should be. I quickly learned to change gears by feel

 

[Vegeta897]

Pi and Stern are the last two people in the world I want to see talking about speedos.

*shudder*

 

[repiV]

Just be careful out there man.

As always.

That's actually a very interesting thought. Sounds crazy at first but when you think about it, it might really help.

Of course it sounds crazy at first - the entire driving population is conditioned to believe that safety equals watching the number on the speedo.

In reality, the speedo is the most pointless instrument of all. It tells you absolutely nothing useful and serves only to distract. They make you tape up your speedo on a trackday for exactly that reason.

The whole situation annoys me not just because I like to ride fast bikes in the manner they were rightfully intended to be ridden, but because this nonsense focus on keeping speeds down at all costs creates all sorts of dangers, without really solving any problems.

For example - overtaking. The single most dangerous maneuver you can do, if it's not done right (not on multi-lane roads of course). The safest way to overtake - providing obviously you have the space to do in the first place - is to use the maximum acceleration possible until you're past the vehicle(s) you're overtaking and move back on to your own side of the road.

It doesn't matter if you add 40mph to your speed during the overtake (easily done in a couple of seconds on a sportsbike), the point is to get past and out of the danger zone as soon as possible. Trying to overtake without exceeding the speed limit WILL cause fatal accidents, and they STILL put speed cameras in places where they will catch people overtaking, encouraging this dangerous insanity.

World is stupid.

that might work in your neck of the woods but might not work in north america where most people drive vehicles with automatic transmission. standard forces you to pay attention to speed (shifting gears)

Speed is relative. It's not remotely useful to know how many miles per hour you happen to be doing at any given moment, it's useful to know how quickly the bend ahead is approaching, how sharp it is to judge entry speed, how quickly the traffic ahead is coming up, what pedestrians are looking to cross the road etc. etc. etc.

 

[CptStern]

Speed is relative. It's not remotely useful to know how many miles per hour you happen to be doing at any given moment, it's useful to know how quickly the bend ahead is approaching, how sharp it is to judge entry speed, how quickly the traffic ahead is coming up, what pedestrians are looking to cross the road etc. etc. etc.

it's useful when judging how much time it'll take to stop not too mention that speed is directly tied to reaction time. you cant forsee someone stepping from behind two parked cars into your path. speed in this instance makes the world of difference

 

[Vegeta897]

it's useful when judging how much time it'll take to stop not too mention that speed is directly tied to reaction time. you cant forsee someone stepping from behind two parked cars into your path. speed in this instance makes the world of difference

He's talking about speed as a number. How is the number 35 useful to you? How does that help you judge how long it takes to stop? Are you going to whip out your calculator while driving and work it out with some formula? He's not saying speed itself doesn't matter, he's saying the arbitrary number of miles per hour is useless other than serving as a recommended driving speed.

Your perception of the speed you are going is the most important thing.

 

[repiV]

What Vegeta said.

Selecting an appropriate speed requires ongoing judgement - something a speed limit can never provide. Judging that appropriate speed is done by feel and instinct, not by looking at the speedo.

If anything, the over-reliance on adhering to speed limits takes away from the capacity of drivers to judge an appropriate speed - that responsibility has been given away to the giant lollipop with a number on it. It's not your top speed when conditions allow that matters, it's that you know when to slow down. In that sense, it's quite probable that rigidly enforcing speed limits will cause more accidents as a result of excess speed.

 

[Krynn72]

Stop saying speedo.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Besides which, impact velocity is almost always far lower than the free travelling speed, for two reasons. Firstly, because accidents don't just happen instantly - there is braking time beforehand. But also because accidents don't tend to happen where the traffic is flowing freely. It's not when you're doing 140mph down the autobahn that you'll crash, it's when all the traffic is congested and doing 50mph.

Fair point on the second part, but I'm pretty sure braking time is taking into account when doing crash studies. It's constantly drilled into us all that from speed x it will be impossible to brake before you cover distance y. Obviously people brake, but that's part of the equation, as is having even enough time to realise what you need to do and do it.

Anecdotally, I see a lot more crashes and blockages and police lines surrounding ruined cars on the side of motorways than I do on normal roads.

So, if we chose our method and speed of travelling according to what would happen IF we had an accident, none of us would fly in aircraft, ride motorbikes or jetskis or even ride a bicycle in traffic. For me personally that line of thinking is incredibly dangerous anyway, because you can't relate accident damage with impact velocity so easily on a bike.

These comparisons don't quite work, though, because

• A biker is not nearly so much of a danger to a car she hits than another car would be
• Motorbikes are comparitively rare; there's less need to limit their impact (so to speak)
• Similarly, jetskis tend to be used in isolation, on holiday, or whatever, and not thousands of them streaming down a busy waterway every day.
• Planes are specialised vehicles that are HEAVILY controlled and run entirely by qualified people. Cars are something we climb into every day, sometimes tired, sometimes drunk. Also, I'm not sure of it, but don't planes crash less often than cars do per journey hours?

It is of course true that most accidents happen in ****ed-up conditions where few safety measures would be effective (not to mention country drivers, students drunkenly roaring through the sticks, oh my saints). And it's true that surviving them can be a crapshoot. But while we may cling too sternly to our motoring regulatory orthodoxy (Germany seems to be okay without speed limits) it's also not something that can be abandoned without care, especially when so many studies seem to indicate that speed cameras in trouble spots genuinely do reduce fatalities by a significant level. Since speed cameras are only the most effective way of getting people to reduce their speed, that does suggest that reduced speeds have some benefits.

 

[repiV]

Fair point on the second part, but I'm pretty sure braking time is taking into account when doing crash studies. It's constantly drilled into us all that from speed x it will be impossible to brake before you cover distance y. Obviously people brake, but that's part of the equation, as is having even enough time to realise what you need to do and do it.

Well, if you take those "twenty is plenty" adverts for example, there are two separate but equally insiduous suggestions at play: 1) it's not the duty of the pedestrian to make sure they don't walk into the road without looking, and 2) you would be driving down the road at 30mph and then suddenly hit a kid at 30mph.

20mph really is painfully slow. It wouldn't surprise me at all if the loss in alertness from bimbling along at 20 increased accidents resulting from stupid people wandering into the road AND the severity of those accidents because they would react slower and do less braking than the person driving at 30.

Anecdotally, I see a lot more crashes and blockages and police lines surrounding ruined cars on the side of motorways than I do on normal roads.

No doubt because motorways carry a very high volume of traffic and it takes far longer to clear up in the aftermath.

These comparisons don't quite work, though, because

• A biker is not nearly so much of a danger to a car she hits than another car would be
• Motorbikes are comparitively rare; there's less need to limit their impact (so to speak)
• Similarly, jetskis tend to be used in isolation, on holiday, or whatever, and not thousands of them streaming down a busy waterway every day.
• Planes are specialised vehicles that are HEAVILY controlled and run entirely by qualified people. Cars are something we climb into every day, sometimes tired, sometimes drunk. Also, I'm not sure of it, but don't planes crash less often than cars do per journey hours?

The sole point I'm making there is that reducing the speed of travel in order to reduce the severity of accidents IF they happen is an ultimately illogical argument, and the only obvious endgame for that argument is getting out and walking everywhere.

It is of course true that most accidents happen in ****ed-up conditions where few safety measures would be effective (not to mention country drivers, students drunkenly roaring through the sticks, oh my saints). And it's true that surviving them can be a crapshoot. But while we may cling too sternly to our motoring regulatory orthodoxy (Germany seems to be okay without speed limits) it's also not something that can be abandoned without care, especially when so many studies seem to indicate that speed cameras in trouble spots genuinely do reduce fatalities by a significant level. Since speed cameras are only the most effective way of getting people to reduce their speed, that does suggest that reduced speeds have some benefits.

Those studies are generally conducted by people with a vested interest (financial or political) in covering the roads in speed cameras, and heavily skewed to get the results they want.

Here's a good starting point which hopefully you will find thought-provoking.

Clicky


Returning to slightly philosophical points for a moment, this whole "issue" is intrinsically linked to the modern obsession with safety at all costs. We are successful precisely because of our ancestors' propensity to take calculated risks. Successful people are successful for the very same reason. We are losing this today, and becoming a society of the unambitious, stable yet utterly unexciting, and ultimately - mediocre.

If you ask me, this attitude is a major threat to our future prosperity and happiness as a society. What's the point of living a guaranteed long, safe life where you achieve nothing, experience nothing, and never truly feel "alive"?

 

[Krynn72]

If you ask me, this attitude is a major threat to our future prosperity and happiness as a society. What's the point of living a guaranteed long, safe life where you achieve nothing, experience nothing, and never truly feel "alive"?

So deep.

 

[Moto]

I just use cruise control once I reach 65 mph.

 

[Krynn72]

I use cruise control when I reach 25. Then I never turn it off and never brake until I get to my destination. It makes every drive one of the slowest, most boring, most intense, and most frightening drives all in one.

 

[Kula Meenur]

^I lol'd, then facepalmed, then lol'd again.

Always drive to the conditions, kiddies.


edit: lemmi sex you Druckles