National speed limit to be cut to 50 mph

[T & P]

If it's not safe to overtake then don't ...

It's not as simple as that, by a long way, and there are far too many variables.

It is not only perfectly possible but also fairly common to find yourself in a situation where you started to overtake a vehicle from a safe start off point, only to realise half way that you are going to need extra speed to complete it safely.

 

[kabbes]

It is not only perfectly possible but also fairly common to find yourself in a situation where you started to overtake a vehicle from a safe start off point, only to realise half way that you are going to need extra speed to complete it safely.

No it's not. Not for me, anyway. Never has been either. It's happened to twice once in my life -- I can still remember them because they were so rare -- and I just pulled back in behind the vehicle I was going to overtake. Speeding up in that situation is completely reckless.

 

[Talkie Toaster]

No it's not. Not for me, anyway. Never has been either. It's happened to twice once in my life -- I can still remember them because they were so rare -- and I just pulled back in behind the vehicle I was going to overtake. Speeding up in that situation is completely reckless.

^ absolutely

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

That's a large part of my point, though. I am the same person. One day I was driving one car, the next day a different car. So why do I drive them differently? In particular, why do I drive the new one considerably more safely?

You can't divorce the psychological effects on a driver from having the power available from the physical act of driving. I would suggest that the negligible benefit from having the extra power is massively overwhelmed by the psychological need to use that power.

combinaton of age and experince factors with having to drive a smaller car ina more defensive fashion making it more safe by default..

 

[kabbes]

combinaton of age and experince factors with having to drive a smaller car ina more defensive fashion making it more safe by default..

Aye, with the latter point meaning that a slower car IS safer, despite not having the "speed to get out of bad situations".

Look, this isn't just speculation. Motor insurers charge more for more powerful cars for a reason. And that reason is data. Independent of other factors, such as age, more powerful cars have more serious accidents than less powerful cars.

 

[T & P]

I've done my fair share of overtaking, but I have to point out the key objection to this -- you shouldn't *really* be needing to overtake in the first place unless the person you are overtaking is going so much below the speed limit that it isn't really an issue.

I guess there is just about the same need to overtake a car, lorry or carvan doing 40 mph than there is overtaking a tractor doing 30. There is no reason why anyone should find themselves stuck behind a caravan or lorry doing 10 mph (or more) slower than the limit allows, if the road itself and the conditions allow for driving up to the limit.

However, a car with the capability to accelerate and reach a slightly higher speed than the limit for short periods of times will be able to overtake much more safely than one that does not.

Speed limiters are an abomination, and a dangerous one at that.

 

[kabbes]

To be fair, the way that you describe your driving sounds like you are a lot more dangerous on the road than somebody else who happens to have a speed limiter.

 

[Roadkill]

I don't agree with this at all. Most road deaths happen in built-up areas and I don't think there's much to be gained from dropping the speed limit on open roads except slowing down journey times and antagonising motorists further. I hope the government decides to drop it.

<e2a> There's a good case for lowering the limit and enforcing it strictly on roads known to be dangerous and I'm all for wider use of 20mph (and lower) limits in built-up areas, but I think a blanket lowering of the national speed limit is going way too far.

 

[T & P]

To be fair, the way that you describe your driving sounds like you are a lot more dangerous on the road than somebody else who happens to have a speed limiter.

Not quite. I always allow myself plenty of space and time when overtaking, and in fact err in the side of caution all the time (to the point where sometimes cars behind me overtake both me and the slow vehicle in front, because I judge the distance to oncoming traffic to be not adequate).

But I find it quite incredible that you don't believe that there are situations where despite every precaution taken by you, you might find yourself in a position where you need extra power and speed to finish an overtaking maneuver safely. You cannot account for the actions of other road users, as surely you must know.

 

[kabbes]

Not quite. I always allow myself plenty of space and time when overtaking, and in fact err in the side of caution all the time (to the point where sometimes cars behind me overtake both me and the slow vehicle in front). But I find it quite incredible that you don't believe that there are situations where despite every precaution taken by you, you might find yourself in a position where you need extra power and speed to finish an overtaking maneuver safely. You cannot account for the actions of other road users, as surely you must know.

These:

It is not only perfectly possible but also fairly common to find yourself in a situation where you started to overtake a vehicle from a safe start off point, only to realise half way that you are going to need extra speed to complete it safely.

Are not the words of somebody I would consider a safe driver. Certainly, I would feel safer knowing that somebody has a speed limiter forcing them to abandon their manoevure rather than seeing them attempt to outdo the car coming the other way by speeding up.

 

[T & P]

These:



Are not the words of somebody I would consider a safe driver. Certainly, I would feel safer knowing that somebody has a speed limiter forcing them to abandon their manoevure rather than seeing them attempt to outdo the car coming the other way by speeding up.

Really? What makes you think oncoming traffic is the only factor? What if the vehicle you're overtaking increases their speed thanks to a downhill stretch because they have not seen you trying to overtake/ are thick idiots? What if it turns out that right in front of the big, wide lorry you are overtaking there is another vehicle, which you had and could not have seen? Etc etc etc.

Have you really driven and overtaken vehicles that much? Because unless you've been extraordinarily lucky, it seems that you have not experienced many driving situations other drivers have and that are caused by no fault of their own.

 

[Talkie Toaster]

Really? What makes you think oncoming traffic is the only factor? What if the vehicle you're overtaking increases their speed thanks to a downhill stretch because they have not seen you trying to overtake/ are thick idiots? What if it turns out that right in front of the big, wide lorry you are overtaking there is another vehicle, which you had and could not have seen? Etc etc etc.

Have you really driven and overtaken vehicles that much? Because unless you've been extraordinarily lucky, it seems that you have not experienced many driving situations other drivers have and that are caused by no fault of their own.

All the situations you describe in this post mean that you shouldn't have overtaken. The "I'm a great driver, it's everybody else that's the problem" attitude is probably a greater danger than speed but we can't get rid of that so reducing the speed at which accidents happen must be a good thing.

 

[cesare]

I really don't like overtaking, I think it's one of - if not the most - potentially dangerous manouevres. So I've always preferred to resign myself to a slower speed for a while if stuck behind someone who really is driving too slowly for safety.

And I can't be the only person that has occasionally needed to overtake only to have some idiot follow suit and too close, so you can't drop back if needed.

 

[T & P]

All the situations you describe in this post mean that you shouldn't have overtaken.

Unless you are Mystic Meg, I fail to see how you could predict such things occuring while considering whether it might be safe to overtake

Do you actually believe there has never been a case of a safe driver who had a crash while overtaking through no fault of his own, and that it is impossible to have an accident if you are cautious enough and follow the rules?

 

[Talkie Toaster]

Unless you are Mystic Meg, I fail to see how you could predict such things occuring while considering whether it might be safe to overtake

Do you actually believe there has never been a case of a safe driver who had a crash while overtaking through no fault of his own, and that it is impossible to have an accident if you are cautious enough and follow the rules?

If you can't see what's in front of the vehicle in front, don't overtake. If you're at the top of a hill, you could have predicted that the vehicle in front would speed up.

Of course, you *could* blame the other drivers for you negligence, but that would be a little foolish.

I'm sure you are a very safe driver. Oh yes, it's everyone else ...

 

[T & P]

If you can't see what's in front of the vehicle in front, don't overtake. If you're at the top of a hill, you could have predicted that the vehicle in front would speed up.

Er, unless you're driving through a mountain road full of S-bends, it might be a tad difficult to see what's right in front of a lorry, being solid objects and all.

And of course, not all down hills start at the summit of a hill. Lots of them start after a flat stretch, and they are not steep, though still allowing a heavy vehicle to gather momentum.

Do you drive much?

 

[Talkie Toaster]

I do and I find people recklessly overtaking to be one of the most annoying things whilst I'm driving.

 

[berniedicters]

These:



Are not the words of somebody I would consider a safe driver. Certainly, I would feel safer knowing that somebody has a speed limiter forcing them to abandon their manoevure rather than seeing them attempt to outdo the car coming the other way by speeding up.

See, I probably used to belong to the "accelerate out of trouble" camp myself, once. But age, experience, and a few routine near-misses have led me to think that, in practice, having the ability to accelerate out of trouble changes the mindset of a lot of people who get that ability to the point that, all too often, they're equally as likely to find themselves accelerating into trouble. I drive a 140bhp Celica, and I drive it like a big girl's blouse, because, frankly, if I want to do anal sphincter exercises, I'd rather do them at home in the privacy of my own bathroom.

But to my point: for all the above, I still think that speed limiters are a horrible, bad idea. It's one thing to recognise the dangers of huge acceleration in an overtaking situation, but quite another to endorse a setup which means that the point someone realises he's being silly is the point at which his car suddenly stops responding to his control inputs, potentially (and probably inevitably) when he's in the middle of one of the manoeuvres with the greatest potential for taking a sudden turn off the catastrophe curve and straight into Central Prangsville. Bad idea. And one which locks us even further into the idea - wrong idea - that speed is all that safe driving is about.

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

Unless you are Mystic Meg, I fail to see how you could predict such things occuring while considering whether it might be safe to overtake

kinda being argumentumentatvie over two seperate points here.

one is when is it appropreate to overtake and the other is were overtaking manuevers taken appropreate?

two seperate questions.

Formerly, yes of course if the prevailing conditions allow the later possibly not if there was no clear way through.

 

[kabbes]

See, I probably used to belong to the "accelerate out of trouble" camp myself, once. But age, experience, and a few routine near-misses have led me to think that, in practice, having the ability to accelerate out of trouble changes the mindset of a lot of people who get that ability to the point that, all too often, they're equally as likely to find themselves accelerating into trouble. I drive a 140bhp Celica, and I drive it like a big girl's blouse, because, frankly, if I want to do anal sphincter exercises, I'd rather do them at home in the privacy of my own bathroom.

But to my point: for all the above, I still think that speed limiters are a horrible, bad idea. It's one thing to recognise the dangers of huge acceleration in an overtaking situation, but quite another to endorse a setup which means that the point someone realises he's being silly is the point at which his car suddenly stops responding to his control inputs, potentially (and probably inevitably) when he's in the middle of one of the manoeuvres with the greatest potential for taking a sudden turn off the catastrophe curve and straight into Central Prangsville. Bad idea. And one which locks us even further into the idea - wrong idea - that speed is all that safe driving is about.

Entirely a reasonable post. I also think that speed limiters are a bad idea and I think your reasoning as to why is pretty sound. We agree (as per usual, actually. I like you. )

But T&P's arguments have done nothing to make that point, which is why I am disagreeing with him. The moment anybody says that "Speed is the answer to get out of a problem", they are making a fundamental fallacy, I think. At least, in fifteen years of extensive driving, including everything from 220bhp turbos to 50bhp tiddlers, I've never actually experienced an occassion when it really helped more than slowing up would have done.

 

[cesare]

"Accelerating out of danger often means accelerating into more danger"

Of course. But there are situations where it's needed such as the example I gave earlier of the idiot that slipstreams you when you're overtaking.

Ahhhh, just remembered, has anyone any memories of driving in those 3 lane roads that used to be so prevalent in France

 

[berniedicters]

"Accelerating out of danger often means accelerating into more danger"

Of course. But there are situations where it's needed such as the example I gave earlier of the idiot that slipstreams you when you're overtaking.

Ahhhh, just remembered, has anyone any memories of driving in those 3 lane roads that used to be so prevalent in France

I have memories of driving in those 3 lane roads that used to be so prevalent in England! "Left side lane, right side lane, suicide lane".

Wisely, they've gone, though I suspect that the 2 + 1 lane arrangement with permissive overtaking for one direction of traffic is the modern equivalent...still hugely safer, as one direction has clear priority.

 

[cesare]

I have memories of driving in those 3 lane roads that used to be so prevalent in England! "Left side lane, right side lane, suicide lane".

Wisely, they've gone, though I suspect that the 2 + 1 lane arrangement with permissive overtaking for one direction of traffic is the modern equivalent...still hugely safer, as one direction has clear priority.

Yes, I suppose my memories of the ones in France are stronger, possibly because at the same time they'd changed the priorities on roundabouts. Nerve wracking time for a couple of years

 

[berniedicters]

Yes, I suppose my memories of the ones in France are stronger, possibly because at the same time they'd changed the priorities on roundabouts. Nerve wracking time for a couple of years

From what I can tell, the "priorite a droit" thing is still a nerve-racking thing for quite a lot of French people!

 

[cesare]

From what I can tell, the "priorite a droit" thing is still a nerve-racking thing for quite a lot of French people!

Yep, I suppose old habits die hard. It seemed to be the little poot-poot farm vehicles that were most likely to appear from the wrong direction without warning.

 

[kabbes]

Always seems to me that French driving is firmly divided into "Parisian" and "other". "Other" tends to be courteous but prone to ancient rural vehicles appearing from nowehere. Where as "Parisian" is... different. I knew a German stunt driver who used to love driving in Paris -- he'd shout "Vive la France" and accelerate into l'Etoile and he'd handbrake turn on the Champs Elysee and nobody batted an eyelid at any of this. And even he thought that the ringroad was crazy shit. Normal people need not apply.

 

[cesare]

My first experience of driving in Paris was getting confused with the ring roads and ending up driving through the centre

 

[kabbes]

There's a reason that they need a good train system in France and Parisian driving on the ring road is that reason.

 

[Cid]

Er, unless you're driving through a mountain road full of S-bends, it might be a tad difficult to see what's right in front of a lorry, being solid objects and all.

Well then you don't overtake...

 

[teuchter]

See, I probably used to belong to the "accelerate out of trouble" camp myself, once. But age, experience, and a few routine near-misses have led me to think that, in practice, having the ability to accelerate out of trouble changes the mindset of a lot of people who get that ability to the point that, all too often, they're equally as likely to find themselves accelerating into trouble. I drive a 140bhp Celica, and I drive it like a big girl's blouse, because, frankly, if I want to do anal sphincter exercises, I'd rather do them at home in the privacy of my own bathroom.

But to my point: for all the above, I still think that speed limiters are a horrible, bad idea. It's one thing to recognise the dangers of huge acceleration in an overtaking situation, but quite another to endorse a setup which means that the point someone realises he's being silly is the point at which his car suddenly stops responding to his control inputs, potentially (and probably inevitably) when he's in the middle of one of the manoeuvres with the greatest potential for taking a sudden turn off the catastrophe curve and straight into Central Prangsville. Bad idea. And one which locks us even further into the idea - wrong idea - that speed is all that safe driving is about.

Is there a significant difference (as far as the point you make above is concerned) between a powerful car with a speed limiter, and a small one that just can't do much more than 60 anyway? Because if not, then surely the small car is equally as dangerous if driven by a driver who doesn't take into account their maximum speed before starting overtaking.
Although i see what you're saying, would it not be the case that if someone knows their car's got a limiter, they will attempt less risky manouvers in the first place?