Speeding cars, lorries, trains, etc.

[ChrisTheRef]

Personally, on undertaking, I will come up behind the car doing whatever slow speed it's doing in lane 3 and will wait for a few moments - because if we're honest, we've all just forgotten to move over again a few times.
If they're clearly just clueless, I take up lane 2 and pass as quickly as I can, but not in an aggressive manner, always keeping 1 eye on the car which, with a clueless driver, may pull straight into lane 2.
I've done this in front of a police car before, which proceeded to do the same thing several seconds later.

 

[90019]

Take a dual carriageway that once was derestricted, with no frontage development, street lighting but now with a 50mph speed limit... one which was applied due to 6 injury accidents one year (those 6 were all passengers in a minibus which overturned, not due to speed) then you get these rediculous speed limits popping up which most normal drivers will exceed because other than a sign saying otherwise the road is telling the driver to drive at a higher speed because it "feels" safe to do so.

There's part of a dual carriageway near me that had it's speed limit lowered from 40 to 30 a couple of years back.
Other than to make money from the camera, I can't work out why.
Interestingly, the part of it that's a 30 now has a speed camera. The majority of it that is still a 40 doesn't.
The part that's a 40 has houses along it, up against the road, and more junctions. The bit that's a 30 has houses back from the road on a separate road running parallel with a fence and about 5m between them on one side, and a wall on the other.

It's the teenage generation who go around on public highways thinking that they can drive like Lewis Hamilton & Schumacher, who caused this in the first place.

So we have you teenagers who've got no experience whatsoever, thinking you can drive like Lewis Hamilton & Schumacher

I'm sorry, but having to resort to this sort of thing just makes you come across as a narrow minded prat.
The sort of person who thinks the roads are there for their use only and that everyone else on them is just a nuisance who shouldn't be allowed to use them.
Do you by any chance suffer from road rage? Everyone else I know with that sort of attitude does.
Frankly, you're the sort of person we could do without on the roads.

No, I won't defend young people who drive like morons, but there are plenty of people of other ages who are exactly the same, and to try and tar all young drivers with the same brush is an idiotic thing to do.

 

[142094]

Well said 90019. I could make sweeping generalisations about middle aged men in high powered cars driving at excessive speeds but of course I know not every middle aged man (or woman) does this.

 

[Zoe]

I'm quite legally allowed to use 10% overspeed to complete an overtaking manoeuvre, so I will use lane 3 again and then drop back to 70mph.

No you are not. It's quite simple, if you can't safely overtake within the speed limit then don't overtake. There is no excuse for breaking the speed limit. Yes there are some stupid speed limits around for example the A13 in East London 3 lanes each way, grade separated junctions and 40 mph speed limit but this doesn't give you any excuse to break the speed limit.

 

[starrymarkb]

Its not just the UK that does dubious camera siting. In Germany when blasting down the Autobahn (at about 90-100mphish, so relativly slow ) I saw what I can basicly describe as: 130km/h sign, 100km/h sign, 80km/h sign, bumpy bit of road, speed camera, derestriction sign. From the 80km/h sign to the derestriction was about 100yards!

 

[ralphchadkirk]

If you need to go above the speed limit to overtake then both you and the other driver are going at the limit, so what is the point of overtaking?

 

[Royston Vasey]

No you are not. It's quite simple, if you can't safely overtake within the speed limit then don't overtake.

Yes, you are. Do you actually drive?

And as for undertaking, if a driver is so oblivious to the situation around them and/or the rules of the road, then that is a far more serious offence. I am always aware of my surroundings, cautious as to what that driver is thinking and so always give people plenty of chance to move over before I undertake. But if you flash your lights at them you get abuse!

 

[Zoe]

Yes, you are.

Please reference this in the Highway Code.

 

[Royston Vasey]

Please reference this in the Highway Code.

I'm on my mobile so cannot. But the Highway Code is not an absolute statement of legal requirements. Personally as an experienced and pragmatic driver, if you need to overtake a car at 50 I'd rather do so at 70 than 60 as the safest thing to do is pass and pull over as swiftly as possible. I believe the HC states to move quickly past the vehicle.

 

[ainsworth74]

You MUST NOT exceed the maximum speed limits for the road and for your vehicle

Source:http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_070304

Overtake only when it is safe and legal to do so. You should move quickly past the vehicle you are overtaking, once you have started to overtake.

Source: http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/travelandtransport/highwaycode/dg_070314

I would say the above is fairly definitive on the matter.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Yes, you are. Do you actually drive?

And as for undertaking, if a driver is so oblivious to the situation around them and/or the rules of the road, then that is a far more serious offence. I am always aware of my surroundings, cautious as to what that driver is thinking and so always give people plenty of chance to move over before I undertake. But if you flash your lights at them you get abuse!

Yes, I agree, it is far more serious when a driver does not know the rules of the road. Just like stating that a driver may speed if overtaking, where the highway code explicitly states that you cannot. :roll:

 

[Royston Vasey]

Yes, I agree, it is far more serious when a driver does not know the rules of the road. Just like stating that a driver may speed if overtaking, where the highway code explicitly states that you cannot. :roll:

I think some of the posters here are rather missing the point. Nobody, absolutely nobody adheres to every law of the road, and cherry picking individual laws to try to claim the moral high ground is a little fatuous and a bit sad. Have you ever exceeded the speed limit? Have you ever driven into a box junction when the road wasn't clear ahead? Have you ever driven with your fog light on when visibility was more than 100m, or in spray where you shouldn't use them, as they are meant only for fog? (an advanced driving instuctor was adamant on that when I had an advanced driving course)

Either all you zealots are being hypocritical or you don't drive (or don't drive a lot). I drive 25,000 miles a year, I have never had an accident, in fact I have avoided being shunted in the back twice having seen what was likely to happen, and a lot of the driving I see on the roads is appalling. Driving slavishly to every limit (presumably requiring considerable concentration on the speedo rather than the road ahead) is not necessarily good driving.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Have you ever exceeded the speed limit? Have you ever driven into a box junction when the road wasn't clear ahead? Have you ever driven with your fog light on when visibility was more than 100m, or in spray where you shouldn't use them, as they are meant only for fog?

Never, can't drive

Is it right, just because others do not obey road law, that it makes it fine for you not to?

Driving slavishly to every limit (presumably requiring considerable concentration on the speedo rather than the road ahead) is not necessarily good driving.

As has been pointed out on this thread by others, a driver should not be allowed to drive if they either remain concentrated on the speedometer, or do not look at it at all.

 

[Royston Vasey]

Never, can't drive

Is it right, just because others do not obey road law, that it makes it fine for you not to?

As has been pointed out on this thread by others, a driver should not be allowed to drive if they either remain concentrated on the speedometer, or do not look at it at all.

Moot point, since they are allowed and do drive despite not knowing their speed. I drive enough that I have that instinct, funnily enough the least aware drivers also happen to be some of those who stick rigidly to speed limits, without much awareness of rules such as lane discipline and fog lights...

All I'm saying is that generally, 80 mph on a motorway is absolutely safe, and in fact speed is the sole cause of a very small number of accidents (about 20% IIRC) whereas driving without due care and attention, as discussed, is a far more serious hazard than mild and fleeting speeding. I'm not exonerating 100 mph merchants, merely saying there is far far more to safe driving than speed.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

As has been said also - speed in itself does not kill. Inappropriate speed and coupled with poor driving does.

 

[me123]

Well said 90019. I could make sweeping generalisations about middle aged men in high powered cars driving at excessive speeds but of course I know not every middle aged man (or woman) does this.

Interestingly, the boy racers in our area have now mostly grown up to be middle aged men. So the younger ones are a lot more sensible, and the boy racers just look like pathetic 40 year olds who're overcompensating for something.

I appreciate that many young people drive like idiots. I've nearly been knocked off the road by one of these idiots, who from what I could see looked to be about 20. But, there are many young people who drive sensibly. There's also the middle aged boy racers I've alluded to, the white van men who're often middle aged, the old men in big cars with inferiority complexes, and the old ladies driving down the middle lane on the wrong carriageway. (OK, the latter rarely happens, but you know what I mean!).

 

[anonymous0101]

Either all you zealots are being hypocritical or you don't drive (or don't drive a lot). I drive 25,000 miles a year, I have never had an accident, in fact I have avoided being shunted in the back twice having seen what was likely to happen, and a lot of the driving I see on the roads is appalling. Driving slavishly to every limit (presumably requiring considerable concentration on the speedo rather than the road ahead) is not necessarily good driving.

Quite an arrogant fellow aren't you!

 

[Greenback]

I have met, or rather listened to a lot of drivers over the years who think that they are good drivers whilst bemoaning everyone else's driving skills, or more usually lack of them.

Without exception they all believe they are above everyone else, and that they can safely and legally perform acts of overtaking that lesser drivers cannot. The suggestion that these people may not be as good or as lawful as they think they are usually gets the person in question outraged.

Unfortunately, most of these drivers are men, and it seems, from reading this forum, that there are still quite a few of them about. They often claim they have never had an accident, blah, blah, which is usually more down to luck and the consideration shown by other road users. Such is their driving, that when they do have an accident, it will often be of the more serious kind, rather than just a scrape.

Before anyone asks, a relation of mine is a good example, and even after three serious accidents refuses to believe he contributed to any of them. This despite the fact that the police 'suggested' he take a refresher driving course after his last crash.

Sadly, I find many of the comments on this thread similar to his ignorant utterings.

 

[Royston Vasey]

Quite an arrogant fellow aren't you!

Well think that if you like, but I was merely stating facts as I see them, and responding to some rather excessive implications that low speed is equivalent to safety, and there's more to it than that. Don't think that I believe I've escaped accidents due only to driving skills, I realise I've also been lucky, but I also take pride in the safety of my driving.

 

[GB]

if you need to overtake a car at 50 I'd rather do so at 70 than 60 as the safest thing to do is pass and pull over as swiftly as possible

Surely the safest thing to do in this scenario is not to go in for the overtake in the first place?...your only going to get stopped at the next set of lights anyway!

 

[Failed Unit]

Surely the safest thing to do in this scenario is not to go in for the overtake in the first place?...your only going to get stopped at the next set of lights anyway!

But it could make the difference between making it over the next set of lights or not

 

[Newportmuscles]

Let's treat car drivers the same as train drivers.
Black Boxes
Regular "driving tests", both known and not known about.
Random snitching from the know it all public.
TPWS
And 2 "SPADs" and you're out.

I reckon this should remove 95% of road vehicles off our roads in 6 months
Taxis less than 2 weeks:roll::roll:

 

[Failed Unit]

Let's treat car drivers the same as train drivers.
Black Boxes
Regular "driving tests", both known and not known about.
Random snitching from the know it all public.
TPWS
And 2 "SPADs" and you're out.

I reckon this should remove 95% of road vehicles off our roads in 6 months
Taxis less than 2 weeks:roll::roll:

To some extents that could be a good thing, I could just imaging the outcry if a box was fitted to a car which prevented it from exceeding a 30mph speed limit. I would love harsher enforcements of "SPADs" as well, maybe a new job for the Gatso!

The driving test retaking is something that should really be done. I guess it is a logisical nightmare. But my sister holds a UK licence she hasn't driven a car for 10 years. She could go out tomorrow on a motorway and is totally legal, but is she safe? Maybe the airlines way of proving you do x miles per annum to keep your licences, but again what does that prove, many lorry drivers speed every single day and they do have black boxes, well tacho's!

 

[Donny Dave]

Firstly, tachographs are not the be all and end all that people suggest.

They only record your hours and activity (break, working, PoA or driving), and what speed you was doing while driving. They don't record what roads you drove along or the speed limits on those roads either.

Personally, I wouldn't mind some sort of black box device on cars/lorries, as it will bring back some personal responsibility on the part of the drivers, but I draw the line at a device that automatically reduces your speed as you approach a speed limit as that will encourage lazyness and sloppy driving.

 

[anonymous0101]

@Greenback
Totally agree with you there mate. But i *strongly* believe any driver who does 25000 miles a year and has been avoided two rear end shunts should be exempt from speed limits as they are obviously a superior driver!

@David
On Tachographs, when the driver of a Land rover towing a trailer fell asleep and caused a derailment the Police were able to determine much of his activities prior to that time and he had no tachograph!

 

[Royston Vasey]

@Greenback
Totally agree with you there mate. But i *strongly* believe any driver who does 25000 miles a year and has been avoided two rear end shunts should be exempt from speed limits as they are obviously a superior driver!

anonymous0101, you are misquoting me and you know it... have you even read my posts?

 

[Peter Mugridge]

From reading a motoring forum called Honest John ( I'm not going to give the link as I suspect that will fall foul of the rules about liks to other forums ) it is clear that in most modern cars the systems can in fact store the most recent 30 seconds of data on speed and braking for example. Not quite a black box, but the technology is already in place.

An increasing number of drivers are fitting miniature cameras to record forwards and rearwards views from their cars, the forward cameras can include showing the dashboard. They do this because they are worried about being in a "no fault" accident and not being believed.

 

[455driver]

Saw one of the police programmes where a car ended up hitting the roof of a house, yes really, and the police could tell how fast he had been driving after down-loading the cars ECU, not sure how much data was on it, they didn't want to give that information out for obvious reasons.

 

[boing_uk]

On Tachographs, when the driver of a Land rover towing a trailer fell asleep and caused a derailment the Police were able to determine much of his activities prior to that time and he had no tachograph!

All assumptions made without ANY shred of hard evidence... just assumptions made against a "normal" persons behaviour.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

All assumptions made without ANY shred of hard evidence... just assumptions made against a "normal" persons behaviour.

No, using witnesses, and other reliable techniques. For instance motorway cameras.