Caporegime
- Joined
- 11 Mar 2005
- Posts
- 32,254
- Location
- Leafy Cheshire
Indeed, and thats why road craft is important.
94mph in a 70 - Scotland Police - what to expect?
- Thread starter alexthecheese
- Start date
Indeed, and thats why road craft is important.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 5 Jun 2003
- Posts
- 91,835
- Location
- Falling...
Absolutely.
I heard something a few weeks ago that explained why the speed limit won't be increased on motorways beyond the 70mph, despite numerous good arguments as to why it should, and it's to do with the Armco barriers, and the way they're designed to perform in a collision. They are basically strong enough to stop a vehicle up to a certain weight from breaching the barrier in a 45 degree impact at 75mph (sorry, I don't know any more specifics), and that is the main reason why motorway speed limits won't be increased, because the cost of replacing all the Armco across the UK's motorway network is prohibitive.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 11 Mar 2005
- Posts
- 32,254
- Location
- Leafy Cheshire
Armco is already being changed for concrete on sections of motorways, it will take a long time but armco is rubbish at stopping a truck.
Yes, but only in accident black spots. Armco is much friendlier to the fleshy blobs inside a vehicle in the event of an accident as it deforms elastically to absorb a huge amount of the impact energy. Concrete...doesn't.
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 9,871
- Location
- UK
Says not a doo gooder - posts make him look like one.
I see what you did there.
No moral crusade here. You insinuated that everyone speeds. We don't.
Obviously a difficult concept, but it is technically possible to drive from a to b within the proscribed speed limits, I know mind blowing isn't it.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 11 Mar 2005
- Posts
- 32,254
- Location
- Leafy Cheshire
Everyone speeds, be it by only 1mph, not slowing down to 30 before the limit kicks in etc.
Unless you drive well below the speed limits, which btw makes you worse than someone who speeds slightly, it would be next to impossible to get through your entire driving career without a speeding infraction.
In a motoway setting a crash against concrete tends to be a glancing blow, or deflected, armco absorbs the impact without allowing the car to glance off it.
I've tried it a few times. Made almost zero difference to the journey time, but by Jingo did it feel slower!
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 9,871
- Location
- UK
As I said, not on purpose. I see a speed limit and I slow down. It's really that simple.
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 9,871
- Location
- UK
That sounds quite lenient if you consider that as a percentage of the limit. 70% over, so twice the OP.
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Aug 2007
- Posts
- 22,441
- Location
- Wilds of suffolk
Why would driving below the MAXIMUM speed limit make him a worse driver than someone exceeding the MAXIMUM limit?
Driving is not just about car control its about observation, road placement etc. Thats why the driving test is not called a car handling test, its to demonstrate your ability to follow the prescribed rules and demostrate that capability on the road.
This is the whole problem with the poor attitude the majority of the population take to driving. Some people think its a target some that its there to be broken as they are an awesome driver and the limit is far too low for them etc etc. Fact is its a legal maximum limit which should only be adjusted DOWNWARDS if traffic or road conditions deem it to be unsafe.
IMO the whole 10% +2mph situation means people think its acceptable to brake the law. Its no more acceptable than any other law.
If your have any decent observation skills is very very easy to slow down before you enter a lower limit section. Anyone who struggles to achieve this is a poor driver.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 11 Mar 2005
- Posts
- 32,254
- Location
- Leafy Cheshire
Drivers who sit at 45 or 50mph on a national speed limit country road are more of a hazard than someone who drives at 65.
People become fedup sitting behind someone who seems unable to drive at what I would consider a more than reasonable speed I.e, 60mph, on a particular section of road in perfect conditions.
Yes it's a maximum limit, but if your unable to achieve close to this in perfect conditions then I would suggest that states far more about your ability or confidence to control a car.
As for the whole no more acceptable to brake the speed limit than any other law, rubbish, it might be law but some things are more sociably acceptable than others, I.e. it more acceptable to do 65 in a 60 than it is to kill someone with a knife.
I see far more poor driving from those who drive slower than I do from those who drive either at, or above the speed limit.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Aug 2007
- Posts
- 22,441
- Location
- Wilds of suffolk
As someone who drives a cross country route daily I tend to agree, but I have just as many issues with the guy determined to do 65 in a 60 limit attempting poor overtaking than the guy doing 45.
Unfortunately thats your opinion. The highway code is quite clear that its the drivers OWN requirement to judge the speed that is suitable, everyone will make that independant call. Bar very few roads there is no requirement to achieve a certain speed. The guy doing 45 is far more likely to avoid a cow in the road just round a sharp corner than the guy doing 65. Simple physics and stopping distance. Who is the better driver is open to debate, but one has the law on his side the other doesn't.
No, go read the highway code again, its quite clear what the speed limits are and how they should be applied, they are NOT a target speed.
NSL is a national speed limit road and has not necessarily been rated that that is a safe speed. It would be better described as unrated.
Excessively slow speed I would agree, but 45-50 in a 60 is not excessively slow.
Yes socially acceptable thats my point. A car is a deadly weapon to cyclists, motorcyclists, pedestrians etc etc etc. For most people its socially acceptable until they are touched by a road traffic indicent that is affected by excessive speed.
This all depends on your personal interpretation of poor driving.
Someone speeding is applying poor judgement permanently where as the guy who does some other temporary poor maneuver has applied poor judgement(or skill) for a shorter period.
Don't get me wrong I have sped plenty, I have been waved down by the police on the motorway. I was seriously into cars and been out in the Ford Sierra cosworth that held the fastest ford in the UK record at over 170mph on the A11 as I was winding the owner up about poor Ford reliability at the Norfolk RS owners club meet.
So I am far from a Saint myself, but its impossible to rationally support speeding when the vast majority are incapable of making the correct judgement that comes with that speed.
Its not just the drivers ability that can affect the situations but also the ability off all those around them, its almost impossible to accomodate all those options.
Take f1, the best drivers in the world yet they still have incidents and get penalties for poor driving judgement. Take Vettle, stick him in his Red Bull on the M25 and tell him he has to drive flat out, he would have an incident within minutes, not from his own skill but from a failing of some other. Teh assumption for some motorists is that others are applying the rules.
The UK driving test is a simple test that you are upto driving at the standard required for the UK roads on the assumption that all the other drivers are competent and applying the same rules.
I call shenanigans tbh, that isn't even outside the error % of the speed guns/cameras used in the UK, Lionel Hutz attorney at law* could have won that.
*The Simpson's lawyer.
Just something I learnt when I got pulled over for that ticket. It's an endorsement not a conviction. So when insurance companies ask you if you have any driving convictions you can answer no.
If I chose to go to court and defend it and was done, that's a conviction.
If I chose to go to court and defend it and was done, that's a conviction.
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 9,871
- Location
- UK
I think that's correct a fixed penalty notice is not a conviction and don't show up on CRB checks for instance. Don't they word it "Do you have any motoring offences, fixed penalty points or disqualifications (including pending convictions) in the last 5 years?". And I'd bet the insurance will have something in there about disclosure or such and expect you to tell them about anything that could be deemed as relevant.
Last edited: