Speeding - Can rules be applied?

[AmosMoses]

Hi all,

Driving into the office this morning I found very little traffic and really good conditions on the country roads I drive on, I was certainly making progress and I didn't seem to be in any danger and felt very safe, this got me thinking. Can we apply rules to speeding?

Now in towns and cities I stick to all speed limits, as the roads are so busy in these areas I consider it very irresponsible to break the limit. I regularly see people doing upwards of 40-50 mph on the local 30mph roads near me.

However when it comes to country roads if i have a clear line of sight, conditions are good and there is no traffic around I don't see any issue in breaking the national speed limit. If the conditions or traffic density change I will slow down to a safe speed.

So can we apply rules to speeding?

My rules for allowing speeding are:

• NSL Road
• No traffic around
• Good conditions
• Clear line of sight
• Immediately slow if any of the above change

Let me know your thoughts, or shoot me down in flames.

Thanks

[Johnnytheboy]

Speaking from the pov of someone that doesn't take limits as gospel, why obey some limits and not others? Seems like a double standard.

[dvenman]

AmosMoses said:

I will slow down to a safe speed

You should be travelling at a safe speed for the conditions anyway - yes, pedantic I know but these are open forums.

[TooMany2cvs]

AmosMoses said:

If the conditions or traffic density change I will slow down to a safe speed.

Do you mean a legal speed, or do you mean that you'll travel at an unsafe speed when nobody's looking?

Quick question - is it always safe and appropriate to travel at or just under the legal limit, on every single bit of road in the UK?
No? So why does the limit infallibly work as a hard-and-fast cap on what IS safe and appropriate, rather than simply what's legal?

[AmosMoses]

TooMany2cvs said:

Do you mean a legal speed, or do you mean that you'll travel at an unsafe speed when nobody's looking?

Quick question - is it always safe and appropriate to travel at or just under the legal limit, on every single bit of road in the UK?
No? So why does the limit infallibly work as a hard-and-fast cap on what IS safe and appropriate, rather than simply what's legal?

I meant legal speed, excuse the mistake.

I agree it isn't safe to travel at the speed limit on some roads, for instances single track country roads with the NSL.

I see your point that speed limits are a guideline and deem what is legal. For me the speed limit is used for a guide as to what speed you can travel at rather than what you have to travel at.

My post may not be conveying my question, what i want to know is if you are speeding can/do you apply rules to deem whether it is safe to exceed that limit?

[TooMany2cvs]

AmosMoses said:

I see your point that speed limits are a guideline and deem what is legal. For me the speed limit is used for a guide as to what speed you can travel at rather than what you have to travel at.

Yep, that seems fair. And that applies above, as well as below that limit.

AmosMoses said:

My post may not be conveying my question, what i want to know is if you are speeding can/do you apply rules to deem whether it is safe to exceed that limit?

Yes, I apply EXACTLY the same rules to decide if it's safe to drive above the limit as I use to decide whether it's safe to drive at the limit. Or 10mph below the limit. Or 20mph below it. Or 30mph below it...

Used properly, the offence of "exceeding the speed limit" really should be an absolutely trivial administrative offence, and no more.
It's when it's used as a synonym for "careless driving" or even "dangerous driving" that it comes into disrepute. And I think you're very close to doing so.

Your "rules" say that 31mph in a 30mph is always an absolute inviolable red line not to be crossed. Fair enough. But what if that same stretch of road was NSL yesterday, and was perfectly safe north of 60 or 70mph then? The only thing that's changed about the road itself is some binbags have been removed from signs.

[Green1man]

You can't make any rules like these and there's a huge variety of all speed limited roads. There are a couple of dual carriageways near me with 30mph sections despite no footpaths etc, this is simply because it gets busy at rush hour, but in quiet times 30mph makes little sense here. There are some 30mph limits that have been NSL for the previous 50 years.

Last year I was hit near head on on a NSL by someone coming around a corner too fast and not making the corner, when I challenged him on his speed he said "I wasn't breaking the speed limit", True, but that was a 25mph corner not a 50mph corner you knob!!

[akirk]

Can you apply rules? Yes I assume you can = autonomous cars - without rules their concept is dead...
Will there be issues with those rules - probably yes
Can a human do better through judgement in the moment - often yes, not always

As with any form of driving - it is all based on the context - conditions / driver / car / others around / weather / etc. etc.

[WinstonWolf]

AmosMoses said:

Hi all,

Driving into the office this morning I found very little traffic and really good conditions on the country roads I drive on, I was certainly making progress and I didn't seem to be in any danger and felt very safe, this got me thinking. Can we apply rules to speeding?

Now in towns and cities I stick to all speed limits, as the roads are so busy in these areas I consider it very irresponsible to break the limit. I regularly see people doing upwards of 40-50 mph on the local 30mph roads near me.

However when it comes to country roads if i have a clear line of sight, conditions are good and there is no traffic around I don't see any issue in breaking the national speed limit. If the conditions or traffic density change I will slow down to a safe speed.

So can we apply rules to speeding?

My rules for allowing speeding are:

• NSL Road
• No traffic around
• Good conditions
• Clear line of sight
• Immediately slow if any of the above change

Let me know your thoughts, or shoot me down in flames.

Thanks

When I did my advanced motorcycling *ahem* years ago we were taught by police riders. You obeyed all speed limits apart from NSL which meant No Sodding Limit

If you didn't make overtakes that were safe and 'on' you failed the course. Those were the days...

[giantdefy]

So, am I allowed, as an advanced cyclist, to ignore traffic laws if I consider it safe to do so ;for instance stopping at red lights?

Edited by giantdefy on Wednesday 6th September 15:35

[Prizam]

giantdefy said:

So, am I allowed, as an advanced cyclist, to ignore traffic laws if I consider it safe to do so ;for instance stopping at red lights?

Edited by giantdefy on Wednesday 6th September 15:35

IMO - yes. Middle of the night, no one around, well sighted and clear junction... you would look a prat just sat there because of a red light bulb. Proceed with caution. Same if you were in a motorised vehicle.

Middle of London, during rush hour... not so much. Only a militant, fluorescent lycra jacket waring self-entitled shouty tt with CCTV bolted to his head would do that.

[SantaBarbara]

giantdefy said:

So, am I allowed, as an advanced cyclist, to ignore traffic laws if I consider it safe to do so ;for instance stopping at red lights?

Edited by giantdefy on Wednesday 6th September 15:35

Most cyclists do, why ask?

[giantdefy]

SantaBarbara said:

giantdefy said:

So, am I allowed, as an advanced cyclist, to ignore traffic laws if I consider it safe to do so ;for instance stopping at red lights?

Edited by giantdefy on Wednesday 6th September 15:35

Most cyclists do, why ask?

1) No they don't
2) To point out double standards

[djc206]

The system you're looking for exists in Texas. It's a prima facie system so doing 35 in a 30 you may still get a ticket but you can successfully contest it if you can prove your speed was safe. Imagine being able to do 90 on an empty motorway on a sunny day knowing your well considered actions are legal. We have absolute limits which are little to do with what is safe and every bit the blunt instrument.

[TooMany2cvs]

giantdefy said:

So, am I allowed, as an advanced cyclist, to ignore traffic laws if I consider it safe to do so ;for instance stopping at red lights?

If it doesn't inconvenience or endanger other road users, I don't see any inherent issue.

[Solocle]

"Can rules be applied?". Yes. Don't do it.

Obviously, like any other action prohibited by the highway code, it's subject to the situation from an advanced driving perspective.
If you were to follow rules dogmatically, you may as well get a google car. It's like offsiding.
To those not in the same mind, would you pull onto a yellow box to allow an emergency vehicle past? Bus lanes? Red lights?

I don't personally view any speed limit as sacrosanct. I typically obey them, but there are times I don't.
So, 20 zones. Ugh. I'm more focused on handling the traffic calming than what the speed limit is.

30 zones. Most times I will obey. However, a local stretch has 30 zones where it really should be 40. Probably 90% of vehicles travelling that stretch do 40. I do likewise, rather than create an antagonistic situation where there really is no reason to do so. Just watch for the scamera vans!

40/50 zones. Much of a muchness. Typically obeyed, when single carriageway. See dual carriageways. However, I recall one instance where I was in a 40 zone single carriageway where, OK, some hazards, but I could travel 60. It's a stretch that was on my daily commute. Well, when I had an ambulance on blues&twos behind me, recognising that there was not a good overtaking opportunity for him, I got up to 60. The only time I actually have peeped somebody infront for travelling more slowly. We both got up the hill at 60 and pulled into the gravel effective layby at the top, without holding up the ambulance. Normal operation then resumed.

60 zones. Yeah, typically obey them, but if I can go faster I just might. If I needed to make better progress, this is the place.

Dual carriageways. I cruise at the limit. If I'm overtaking, I will exceed the limit. Because I'm not doing elephant racing. Also, if the flow of traffic was above the limit, I'd probably go with the flow.

In all zones, if there is a reason that speeding is the safest course of action, I will do so.

[namastebuzz]

I'd prefer the road to be inhabited by competent drivers rather than ones who may obey all the rules strictly but be otherwise incompetent.

Having had several discussions with Traffic cops over the years (ahem) they've generally told me that, on motorways, as long as you're not breaking 90 they're not too bothered. The 70 limit was brought in when people drove Ford Anglias with drum brakes and crossply tyres and should really be about 85mph nowadays - which is kinda what the actual speed is in the outside lane.

On NSL roads, I've done Advanced Motorcycle Training at well over the limit and Police Driver training similarily (albeit 20+ years ago.)

The problem is that the law has to account for all standards of driver and legislate for the lowest common denominator.

Driving/riding quickly, on a good road, on a nice day, in the right conditions is fun. I think it's entirely possible to do this safely.

The OP seems to have a sensible approach and I'd rather share the road with him than someone who obeys all the speed limits but notices nothing else.

[TartanPaint]

Yes, I have my own two rules to cover this question:

1) Always drive to the system of car control (and the conditions, your ability etc).

2) Treat speed cameras as hazards which have to be predicted, planned for and then negotiated at a safe speed, just like any other hazard. The only difference is that the safe speed for a speed camera is prescribed by law, not your own judgement.

That pretty much covers all eventualities. Stick to that and you simply cannot get into trouble.

If you get caught speeding in the legal sense, you simply failed to predict the presence of a speed trap, so you deserve to be prosecuted because if you weren't planning for the potential hazard, you weren't paying enough attention to justify any "plus speed".

[djc206]

TartanPaint said:

Yes, I have my own two rules to cover this question:

1) Always drive to the system of car control (and the conditions, your ability etc).

2) Treat speed cameras as hazards which have to be predicted, planned for and then negotiated at a safe speed, just like any other hazard. The only difference is that the safe speed for a speed camera is prescribed by law, not your own judgement.

That pretty much covers all eventualities. Stick to that and you simply cannot get into trouble.

If you get caught speeding in the legal sense, you simply failed to predict the presence of a speed trap, so you deserve to be prosecuted because if you weren't planning for the potential hazard, you weren't paying enough attention to justify any "plus speed".

What about unmarked cars?

[TartanPaint]

What about them? Unmarked is not the same as invisible.