h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Hell I speed. But I ride a motorbike so if i hurt anyone im going to be seriously hurt myself.

But even in a car I speed. In residential areas I keep to 30, but outside of this many of the limits are too low. They were set many years ago when cars were very different then they are now. Even the AA wants to change the motorway limit to 80mph.

Motorists don't like speed cameras but in an accident blackspot its agreed they'll save lives. We accept that we are breaking the law and thats the chance of getting caught.

However what does annoy is the police/councils placing cameras in *trap* areas, for instance hidden shortly after a drop in speed limit, or on a perfectly clear dual carriageway. They are only placed here to make money...

And as for speed, on a motorbike you see a lot of strange car behaviour. Some of the limit followers will plod along at 30mph in their own little world, ignoring all around them. *Most* repeat *most* people driving at speed will be more aware of the traffic situation.

And a little statistic, only 1 in 10 road accidents is due to excess speed. Maybe the other causes should be looked into.

Didn't mean to downsize you, airscotia

In which case, I shall add that I have received more courtesy on the roads from drivers such as airscotia than your average family saloon driver.

Also when H had an accident last month, it was an LGV driver that stopped to help him.

Ooooh! Goody Goody, speeding convo

i) Speeding is dangerous, accidents are more likely to occur and more likely to be fatal.
a) Partially wrong, speeding is not dangerous otherwise I would be dead or badly injured, and so would most racing drivers.
I would not, of course, argue that being hit at 150 is not more likely to kill you.
Inappropriate use of speed is dangerous. Going too fast for the conditions, for the road, not too fast for some arbitrary limit.

ii) Speeding is illegal, AGAINST the law. When motorists whine about it they always seem to talk about speeding as if it is a perfectly normal and legitimate activity; it is not it is against the law in order to save lives.
I wouldn;t really like to speculate on the motives behind it but I very much doubt they are this clear cut. Certainly in the uk the 70mph limit, often quoted as being brought in on the back of the Jag E-Type doing 150mph up the M1 or something, was actually an experiment designed to help reduce the requirement of fuel consumption during the fuel crises at the time. As with many 'useful' experiments, it never got removed. There is no reason for a 70mph limit over a 60, 73, 87 whatever limit, it was just that it was about as fast as most cars could possibly go safely at the time.

iii) It is not necessary to speed. A good driver should be able to tell roughly at what speed they are traveling at, if not then they have a speedomiter on the car to check with.
Define 'to speed'. If it is not necessary to speed then all speed limits should be lowered to the lowest speed limit which would effectivly put a blanket 20mph on the country. You are right, it is not necessary to go over 4mph walking pace. However, most people find it convenient to take 4 hours to do a journey instead of 4 days.

This is, in my opinion, a classic case of Government FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt). What causes accidents? Bad driving. Now bad driving can be doing 50mph down a road outside a school. It can be doing 150mph down a busy wet motorway. Then again, it could be doing 25mph down an icy twisty country road. On the other hand I would not classify doing 110 mph down an empty 3 lane motorway in good conditions (sunny, dry etc) in a performance vehicle maintained correctly as bad driving.

BUT

They don;t make 'bad driving' cameras. It is much easier to demonise and prosecute people for a nice simple law like speed limits, whether or not they actually help.

Don;t get me wrong, I don't make a habit of speeding, and when I do, I do it in safe places, not 30 zones or near schools or busy bus stops or whatever. However, the 'speed kills' message is an over simplification which is enabling the powers that be to introduce ever more stringent rules and regs and gain massive income from those prosecuted. It is unfair and unbalanced.

For a much better argued case, please go see http://www.abd.org.uk/
Lots and lots of information and some very good suggestions.
Also some I do not agree with, but there ya go

I speed. There, I said it; now I can move on

Speed isn't the issue, unless you're focussing narrowly on breaking the law. The issue is safe driving. The 30mph limit may well not be a safe speed on frosty days near school gates, but it's still legal. Similarly, it could be argued that on fine dry days it's safe to go faster than the limits. Furthermore, I would suggest that maintaining a constant, even & predictable flow of traffic is safer than being the only car in a square mile sticking rigidly to 30mph. Driving with due regard to the conditions is about more than just speed, and limiting driving sanctions to speed isn't encouraging good driving practices (eg hogging the middle lane on motorways, lack of indication, 30mph past a school gate).

Having said all that, I'm happy to agree with the central thrust of the original rant that us speeders shouldn't be complaining when caught. You pays yer money and yer takes yer chance, and whinging when you lose isn't the done thing.

"). What causes accidents? Bad driving. Now bad driving can be doing 50mph down a road outside a school. It can be doing 150mph down a busy wet motorway. Then again, it could be doing 25mph down an icy twisty country road"

No doubt that is true, bad driving does cause accidens, but I reckon that two comparably bad drivers, one at 50mph and one at 25mph on the same road, the one going faster is more likely to cause an accident.

"There is no reason for a 70mph limit over a 60, 73, 87 whatever limit, it was just that it was about as fast as most cars could possibly go safely at the time."

Hell I am not arguing that all speed limits are corect, can see tht there are some situations where they might be higher (on a motorway for instance) but in urban areas where pedestrians are near roads at all times (as they are pretty much everywhere in plymouth) they are spot on and should be enforced rigerously.

"They don;t make 'bad driving' cameras. It is much easier to demonise and prosecute people for a nice simple law like speed limits, whether or not they actually help"

I am sure that more needs to be done about bad driving; as a frankly SCARED pedestrian, I agree wholeheartedly. But the simple fact is people going too fast scare me one hell of a lot more.

"enabling the powers that be to introduce ever more stringent rules and regs and gain massive income from those prosecuted. It is unfair and unbalanced."

I know a salesman of exotic substances who says exactly the same bout his line of business..... funny that.

Aye, i agree. If yer going to break the law expect the consequences.
If you disagree with the law, as I do in the way it is currently interpreted, then there are other options and means to change it.

It does work as well, see the abd site again, but at least one person has been done for doing 60 in a 50 only to have it quashed since there was no valid reason for that road being a 50. So there may be hope!

oops, double replies, bad form and all that

"No doubt that is true, bad driving does cause accidens, but I reckon that two comparably bad drivers, one at 50mph and one at 25mph on the same road, the one going faster is more likely to cause an accident. "

But it is still their bad driving that causes the accident isn;t it? The speed only modifies the severity. Personally, I'd sooner the accident was avoided and we stopped the bad drivers. That would save many more accidents wouldn't it?

So I should be banned from going fast because it scares you . I think i'd need a much stronger reason than that personally.

"I know a salesman of exotic substances who says exactly the same bout his line of business..... funny that."
The point being?

People who do stuff that I wrong, complain about being caught

People who do stuff that Is wrong, complain about being caught

Well, someone's got to stick up for the motorist in this thread. Might as well be me.

Speeding is not the primary cause of road accidents. That is driver carelessness. Except in 30-mph regions, I doubt whether a driver travelling 10mph above the limit, with good reactions, in average traffic conditions, and on a dry road is any more likely to have an accident.

However, this is by the by from my main argument, in the police could be spending a lot more time on 'street' and domestic crimes than on motoring. My gran - aged 89 - was burgled last week, and the police questioned her for 10 minutes and she hasn't seen them since. No victim support, no advice, no updates on catching the burglar - nothing. Why? Because in Scunthorpe all the police are sat in unmarked vans giving tickets to people driving at 35mph.

A village nearby had a self-congratulatory sign put up by Humberside Police a few weeks ago saying '241 people caught speeding in the last year'. The irate villagers immediately made and put up one themselves saying '0 burglaries solved in the same time'.

OK - so more people are killed on the roads than we would like. But a total clampdown on speeding motorists is a) impractical and b) not prioritising.

B

The radar speed limit signs have proved to be more effective than speed cameras. The sign's LEDs light up as a speeding driver approaches displaying the speed limit on that stretch of road.

I have come across one only once and the needle on my speedometer was just over the white mark for 30 when I glanced at it as the sign illuminated. It was positioned as the road went downhill and I thought it was a really effective use of the sign. I slowed to just under 30 and so did the car behind me.

I would also like to see signs that lit up and displayed 'well driven' or something, I'm always pathetically pleased to receive praise!

I see.
That is true, many who are caught do complain.
I could respond with another 'and the point is?' post as I do not yet see that you have made one.

However, as I think i got off on one a bit back there for no very good reason, I shall try and calm down and explain my thoughts a little in the interests of debate

So, people who get caught complain.
But does that necessarily mean that the laws which are in place which have caught them were not there merely to line the public purse? or that blanket laws which can be used for publicity and spin are favoured because they are cheaper and easier to apply whilst not actually being the best response for the problem at hand?
And what if they didn't? Suppose, just for a moment, that there was an unjust law under which people were being prosecuted. Now, are you saying that those who are prosecuted under that law should not complain? I know, you don;t see the drugs or the speeding laws as unjust. I do, and so do many others. And lots of other laws.
I keep being told I live in a democracy (of sorts). Not sure where you are from so I am not trying to apply this to your actions. This means i can complain about things, apparently. This complaining might lead to changes. Especially in social laws where 'just' and 'unjust' are variable quantities subject to the prevailing social climate.

I, I must admit, haven;t been caught. Probably because I don't go made and drive dangerously or speed in a provocative area. But i will still complain

Look I understand what you are saying Master B but I shall repeat my mantra from the opening preamble.

"If yo can't do the time, don't do the crime"

I have no sympathy for people complaining about being caught breaking the law, just dont do it, and you wont get caught.

OK, thought I'd leave a gap for a reply to my posting, but can;t leave post 33 unchallenged.

Fair do's that mantra makes sense to most people. However, it is somewhat naive in assuming that all the laws of the land are just and without alternative motive. It assumes a 'black&white' perspective on law. It assumes the establishment which created the laws knows what it is doing.
You say you have no sympathy for those who break the law. Lets not confine this to one country, unless you wish to. What about those fighting oppresive laws, should they just sit there and do nothing? I think not.
OK, ok, back to the context of speeding. The law is concentrating on one, easily defined, easily controlled area that causes (and yes, I did mean cause as defined in UK Government stats as being a major contributory factor) a small percentage of accidents. It is a factor in many more, I will admit, but it is not the high profile killer that many would have us believe.

It looks as if we all agree that there should be a speed limit, but disagree with the position it is set at. I believe some of the limits are an anachronism, relating as they do to vehicles and road standards of the 1950's, but to say 'i'm capable of determining what is a safe speed to drive at', is not a solution.

The whole system needs updating, with the co-operation of the motoring organisations, and new relevant limits determined.When these new and presumably sensible limits have been set, i would have no qualms about offenders being prosecuted to the full. Under these conditions a plea of ' i know what's safe' would be irrelevant.

To go in tandem with this should be much higher standards of training , even re-testing after a number of years if neccesary. I'm human and fallible, and the high number of miles i do in a year makes it more likely that one of my mistakes will result in an accident, so i'd welcome any improvements in safety so long as they are based on fact, and not myth or lore.

Ictoan,

I don't think the analogy you provided about fighting appressive regimes applies here, because I strongly doubt that many people speed out of a sense of moral outrage and conviction. Neither do they campaign or lobby against the speed limits in other ways. It's not civil disobedience, it's just disobedience.

Speaking as a speed-sinner myself, I take the view that when we decide to act outside the proscribed limits, we are assuming the risk of incurring a penalty. If, having knowingly assumed the risk and taken the gamble, we then lose, it's hardly fair to then complain about it especially if we weren't campaigning about the issue before we got caught.

I'd like to know how many of the 'I know what's safe better than the lawmakers' folks have taken a test to become a member of the Institute of Advanced Motorists

It's all very well to say 'Oh, I go faster than the speed limit when I'm on a clear/well lit/open/traffic-free road because there are no apparent risks', but there are many people who don't. Because of those who don't feel that the law applies to them, and because of inexperienced drivers, the speed limits are set lower than many people apparently feel is necessary. That doesn't justify breaking the law.

I drove for a living in London - I was a white van man. I have no qualms or embarrassment about saying that because I was a careful and considerate driver - I had little choice i the matter because I was mostly hauling people's belongings from one house or flat to another. You're not showing a lot of respect if you drive like a maniac with someone's entire life in the back of your van.

Everyone has their own idea about what kind of person white van man is and how he drives. Converesely, most white van men feel exactly the same about other drivers. How can that be? Doesn't everyone who complains about WVM obey the law and the speed limit at all times? Of course not. They're equally at fault themselves.

Saying that *you* know what's safe for you doesn't mean that everyone possesses the same judgement and driving skills. If you believe that you can handle a car at 60 mph on a non-motorway road, that doesn't mean that the young kid who just passed his test at 17 does. What should we do about that - make speed limits age-defined? That's patently ridiculous. Perhaps they should only be allowed to drive cars which have a governor which prevents the vehicle from going faster than 30mph. How are you going to enforce that? How are you going to stop them getting into any other car they want to?

Saying that current laws shouldn't apply to you because you believe you have better skills than others is grossly irresponsible. Whatever people have, they'll always want a little more - it's human nature. Make the speed limit 80mph on motorways, and many of those who currently travel at 80 will step up to 90. So you're on a clear stretch of motorway. Do you honestly believe you can handle a blowout at that speed? You might not take anyone else with you if the car turns over, but you're going to tie up the police and ambulance services unnecessarily, and take up a hospital bed and quite possibly an ICU space for no good reason.

The safer cars become, the harder and faster motorists believe they should be able to drive. All fine and dandy for the driver, but not so good for everyone else. The bigger cars become - let's talk about SUV's and people carriers shall we - the safer drivers feel and the harder and faster they drive. If you're driving your car and are hit by a stonking great 4x4 (let me reiterate what Alexei Sayle said - "You don't need f***ing four wheel drive to go to f***ing Sainsburys!" ), who do you think's going to come off worse? You be damn sure that the 4x4 driver feels safe enough in their vehicle to not really care too much about you. Let's not get into a rant about SUV's - that's a whole nother conversation, but the fact that when people drive one of those they often drive a little faster and a little less safely is relevant to this thread.

Most, if not all of the road laws are there for a damn good reason - there are far too many drivers who are inexperienced or who have poor judgement, and there are far too many drivers who have little or no respect for other road users. The behaviour of those drivers has to be contained, and speed limits are one way of doing that.

And I'm buggered if I'm going to preview this and read through it all again - if there any typos, make of them what you will

If it's illegal, then it's a crime where you are presumed guilty before it's proved. You have to prove your innocence, which is wrong. Be nice to see other types of crime targeted in this way though. Such a high rate of convictions would be nice for the 100+ muggings a day in London, lovely.

Although I do agree that if you don't like getting nicked for speeding, don't speed. It's quite easy to do.

Geoff, the analogy was painted with a broad brush as I felt the example was equally so painted. It was also to point out that i have the right to complain about any law i feel unjust. And i will do so. Hmm, reading back perhapsi am guilty of muddying the waters though. On reflection I guess I am talking about complaining *about* the law whereas the original comment was people complaining about being caught full stop. If so, I appologise for causing confusion and drift.


I think my issue is the 'speed is bad' message. Speed, on its own, is not bad. It doesn;t kill. If you have an accident, then greater speed will result in greater injuries / damage. I won't argue with physices.
But the accident information available from the government itself and its various departments shows that speed is not a major cause of accidents. Reducing speed, which has happened, has not resulted in a directly correlated drop in accidents. Perhaps the PTB should take a fresh look at this and see if there is a better way around the issue.

I just think there has been a single tracking of this issue, these things are never so simple and it annoys the hell out of me when people try to make them that way.

On the "its illegal don;t do it" front all I will say is I don;t believe we are supposed to be in a police state, so the law should be reactive to the people not vice versa. But that's probably a whole other thread

I don;t think anything else was aimed at me, if there was and I missed, point it out pls

It's a good thing to remember sometimes that speed limits are just that, LIMITS, not targets or average speeds. As i said earlier perhaps the limits need reviewing, but whatever they are set at they are there to be obeyed.Break the limit, get caught, you are guilty.