Why do people think it acceptable to break the Speed Limit.

[Brun]

My point is that motorists typically use this 'levels of breaking the law' argument to justify speeding to what ever extent they feel is appropriate. Other similar incredibly common examples are hitting the accelerator on an amber light because "it's ok as long as you get through before it turns red". Or using a handheld phone while in stationary traffic.

Meanwhile - as @Penfold101 illustrates above - they don't allow other road users to do likewise.

 

[Nasher]

Some of the recently lowered limits are dumb. Most are going to ignore a 30-40 on a long, wide open road.

There is definitely much more of an issue with people hogging middle lanes now than there used to be. Which causes moving bottlenecks. Luckily no one really cares if you just blast down the inside of them (some get really upset by it lol). I even see HGVs and buses doing it now.

 

[Greboth]

My point is that motorists typically use this 'levels of breaking the law' argument to justify speeding to what ever extent they feel is appropriate. Other similar incredibly common examples are hitting the accelerator on an amber light because "it's ok as long as you get through before it turns red". Or using a handheld phone while in stationary traffic.

Meanwhile - as @Penfold101 illustrates above - they don't allow other road users to do likewise.

I understood your point. I don’t think you understood mine.

By your logic then, if I’m ok with people breaking the law on the internet by downloading films/music. I should be ok with people breaking the law in the internet to share illegal pornography?

The obvious answer is no. There are different levels to breaking the law - hence different punishments. Because someone finds it acceptable to break the law in one respect doesn’t mean they automatically have to accept any and all law breaking by others in the same environment. People can and obviously do find jumping a red light, even on a bicycle, more egregious than speeding.

It’s the same as my example above, I have no problem people doing 90mph on a motorway (in good conditions) but I do have a problem with people doing 50mph in a 30mph.

 

[Gepetto]

Don't put words in my mouth. I said you want validation. You do; that's why you're posting this on a tech forum. You will change no opinions on here and you know it.

Get campaigning to the real general public, not the stubborn know it alls on here. When will we see Gepetto on a billboard or telly advert campaigning for changes to speeding offences? I think never.

You will probably never see me on a Billboard, and you wouldn't want to see my ugly mug anyway.

I campaign against speeding, not speeding offences. I would rather see no speeding offences at all.

I'm not likely to see any results from my efforts, as a large number of drivers seem to think they are invulnerable and will always get away with it. Until they don't.

 

[Gepetto]

First guy on my ignore list.

Oh dear. What am I going to do now?

Your opinion was quite clear.

 

[Brun]

People can and obviously do find jumping a red light, even on a bicycle, more egregious than speeding.

*This* is my point. You keep pointing out the nuances of speeding, including driving 30% over the speed limit being fine. Then simply state that cycling through red lights - without any context - is worse. Why can't that be considered ok in some circumstances?

 

[Mr_Sukebe]

Some of the recently lowered limits are dumb. Most are going to ignore a 30-40 on a long, wide open road.

There is definitely much more of an issue with people hogging middle lanes now than there used to be. Which causes moving bottlenecks. Luckily no one really cares if you just blast down the inside of them (some get really upset by it lol). I even see HGVs and buses doing it now.

You seem to have missed your own hypocrisy. You believe that it’s ok for you to ignore the law, but not someone else, just because YOU believe one is less important than the other.

The reality is that both are in the wrong, and your attempted justification just provides ammo for the other person.

This only stops when we all start following the laws that have been put in place to protect society from itself. Ignoring laws just because you feel like it is the starting point for anarchy, yet that just doesn’t occur to you and even when I’ve pointed it out, I know that you’ll be back to deny it.

Come on, just THINK for a change about how your own actions encourage the actions of others.

 

[D3K]

Deal with the oblivious, uneducated middle-lane hoggers. Ban trucks taking over each other because of a 2mph speed difference
Maybe then I won't feel the need to make up for lost time by speeding.

Just kidding. I will drive as fast as feels reasonably possible within the conditions of the day and the performance of the car. Just too much fun.

 

[Mr_Sukebe]

Why does this discussion bring to mind the opening sequence of Idiocracy...

 

[BUDFORCE]

You seem to have missed your own hypocrisy. You believe that it’s ok for you to ignore the law, but not someone else, just because YOU believe one is less important than the other.

The reality is that both are in the wrong, and your attempted justification just provides ammo for the other person.

This only stops when we all start following the laws that have been put in place to protect society from itself. Ignoring laws just because you feel like it is the starting point for anarchy, yet that just doesn’t occur to you and even when I’ve pointed it out, I know that you’ll be back to deny it.

Come on, just THINK for a change about how your own actions encourage the actions of others.

Nah I agree with him.

I obey the laws mostly. But you have to realise that some of the speed limits are decided by a committee of idiots, half probably don't even have a driving license or have had sex.

There is a 20 limit put in place in my nearest town now, NOBODY sticks to it, and I've never seen the police try to enforce it

 

[adidan]

And there are plenty of winding country roads with a 60 limit you'd never do 60 down unless you want to either end up in a ditch or face first in a tractor coming round the bend.

Don't get me started on speed bumps. Damned things not only mess with your car but they're a hindrance to ambulances, delaying response times and impacting patient care.

Not to mention other emergency services.

 

[tom_nieto]

When the general public finally understand merge in turn, then we can increase speed limits. Until then, they’re probably sensible. I’ve actually found that the average speed of UK motorways (even without heavy traffic) is much lower than 15-20 years ago. One or two cars bombing it along at ridiculous speeds, but the vast majority seem to be at or less than 70 mph.

It’s all about driving to the conditions. Oh, and not being a dick.

 

[aaronyuri]

You will probably never see me on a Billboard, and you wouldn't want to see my ugly mug anyway.

I campaign against speeding, not speeding offences. I would rather see no speeding offences at all.

I'm not likely to see any results from my efforts, as a large number of drivers seem to think they are invulnerable and will always get away with it. Until they don't.

Send some thoughts and prayers whilst you're asking for everyone's cooperation. Got to do everything you can to stop those speeders.

Whilst you're at it, post on OcUK for world peace and a unified global society. Don't worry, everyone. Gepetto posted about it in OcUK - everything will be fine.

 

[IC3]

Higher speeds are ok, when you've decent motorways and driving standards are higher...

 

[Brun]

It’s all about driving to the conditions.

Which everyone clearly interprets as how much faster you should drive when they're favourable.

 

[Greboth]

*This* is my point. You keep pointing out the nuances of speeding, including driving 30% over the speed limit being fine. Then simply state that cycling through red lights - without any context - is worse. Why can't that be considered ok in some circumstances?

Of course it can be considered ok in some circumstances.

There’s 2 factors though that go in to blanket statement on cycling through a red light. The first is that jumping a red light is worse so there are far fewer ways to justify or mitigate it. The second is, I’ve witnessed far more people recklessly jump red lights than I have recklessly speeding.

 

[Rroff]

I have very mixed feelings about this as I'm a stickler for the limits and what is actually an appropriate speed for the conditions in areas where there is a good reason for a speed limit (which some might feel is subjective but IMO it is usually clear cut despite some people being too uncaring to comprehend it) especially built up areas, etc. but on the open road when conditions are good I don't really care what speed people do as long as it isn't excessive and reckless.

People driving significantly below a sensible speed for the limits and conditions also present a significant hazard so I frown just as much on that as well.

 

[Brun]

There’s 2 factors though that go in to blanket statement on cycling through a red light. The first is that jumping a red light is worse so there are far fewer ways to justify or mitigate it. The second is, I’ve witnessed far more people recklessly jump red lights than I have recklessly speeding.

Seriously, how is it worse? Please show us some evidence of the consequences of cyclists jumping red lights, to compare with the regular fatalities and destruction of property caused by speeding drivers.

Whatever you claim to have witnessed is clearly skewed by your obvious personal biases.

 

[Haggisman]

I feel very strongly about this, and I feel we need a change of mindset in the UK.

Agreed, but...

Speed is responsible for more than 40% of Killed and Serious Injury incidents in Essex.

I'd question the accuracy of this statement. Excess speed almost certainly makes any incident worse when it occurs, but I expect that the cause of almost all incidents* is either people not paying attention (e.g. fiddling with their phone/radio/talking to their mate), or performing dangerous manoeuvres (e.g. blind overtakes, tailgating, dodgy lane changes etc.)

Surely speed is responsible for 100% of them? If speed = 0m/s then what injury could possibly occur?

If you want to get pedantic about it, then really it's acceleration/deceleration which is the real killer


I always try to stick to the limit, ultimately the law is the law, and if people don't agree with the limit then they should campaign to their council to have it changed, if enough people share their view then maybe they'll be successful. If we get to the point where it's seen as acceptable to pick and choose which laws apply to us then we have bigger problems as a society than people driving too fast.

Always find it amusing when I (inadvertently) pull out in front of a speeding driver and they get really angry about it - I thought you didn't care about the rules of the road?


* if we take obvious things like drink driving out of the equation.

 

[Resident]

I feel very strongly about this, and I feel we need a change of mindset in the UK. Speed is responsible for more than 40% of Killed and Serious Injury incidents in Essex.

The only larger factor is Driver Inattention, or put more plainly, idiocy.

The councils can specify speed limits, and the Police have to enforce them, but the Police cannot do anything about the idiots, as we simply do not have enough of them to cover every idiot, every day.

I feel we need much, much stiffer consequences for speeding, better education in schools, better assessment of driving abilities as we get older, more eyesight tests etc.etc.

Thoughts?

40% is false.

I have no problems with cyclists jumping red lights when it’s appropriate and safe to do so.

Traffic controls systems are there for everyone's safety, it's never appropriate regardless of road user.

Are you suggesting that if I deem it to be safe and appropriate, given my professional level of driver training, I can run red lights in my vehicle, even if it's a 13ton double deck bus?

Seriously, how is it worse? Please show us some evidence of the consequences of cyclists jumping red lights, to compare with the regular fatalities and destruction of property caused by speeding drivers.

Whatever you claim to have witnessed is clearly skewed by your obvious personal biases.

LINK - Times Article - Below is the text in case you can't get around the paywall.

Google has a number of similar links to stories of the consequences of cyclists ignoring the law and even causing fatalities.

Using "personal bias" as a way to attack the poster is just puerile.

Times Article:


A cyclist was convicted yesterday of knocking over and severely injuring a leading solicitor after ignoring a red light and sending the victim spinning into the road.

Clive Hyer suffered brain damage and is unlikely to be able fully to resume his legal career after Andrej Schipka ploughed into him at a busy junction in Central London last July.

City of London Magistrates’ Court saw CCTV footage of Schipka, having ignored a red light, hitting Mr Hyer in the middle of the road at Holborn Viaduct while travelling at about 26mph. Mr Hyer suffered a fractured skull and a brain haemorrhage, and in a witness impact statement said that he was only 40 per cent of the person that he had been before the incident.


Mr Hyer said: “A statement of this kind can only scratch the surface of the problems and difficulties created by one cyclist’s carelessness and recklessness. There is barely a moment of any given day that does not result in my feeling the impact of the damage.”