Dozy motorists ignorant of speed limit laws.



Conor wrote:

>> The average journey time in the UK is 45 minutes, so
>> saving an hour a day would require an unfeasibly large
>> increase in average speeds. And of course what causes
>> delay is not speed limits, but traffic jams. If only
>> "they" would do something about all the traffic jams, eh?

> In 1995 for me to get from Hull Docks to Trafford Park in
> Manchester for 8.30am, I'd leave around 5.45-6am. In 2004
> for me to get from Hull Docks to Trafford Park in
> Manchester for 8.30 am I HAVE to leave by 5am otherwise I
> stand no chance. actually have to make sure I'm past J20
> on the M62 no later than 7.30 am otherwise I end up
> sitting in the most horrendous traffic crawling along.

Yes, you have illustrated my point perfectly. Speed limits
and their enforcement have had no effect on your journey
time, or at least negligible effect compared with traffic
congestion. That is my experience as well.

--
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after
posting. http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

Victory is ours! Down with Eric the Half A Brain!
 
Conor wrote:

>>> Moron. Anyone who has to slow to a speed that obstructs
>>> *most* other drivers is obviously incapable of driving
>>> properly. Properly being defined as the way that most
>>> people can drive.

>> Moron. Anyone who decides to drive slower than most
>> people drive may well be right: most drivers overestimate
>> their own competence.

> And the slower driver may actually be driving at the
> posted speed
> limit.

A sound point. The ABD want the Highway Code amended to
require people to get out of the way if they are "holding
up" faster traffic[1]; the implication, in context is pretty
clear: they want to stand on the Highway Code to force those
who are obeying the speed limit to give way to those who
refuse to. Which has a certain irony.

[1] For some reason as I read their page the words "****,
****" sprang unbidden to mind. My children have been
listening to the tales of Mr Toad of late, obv. :)

--
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after
posting. http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

Victory is ours! Down with Eric the Half A Brain!
 
Dave J wrote:

>> I am driving within the law, they're not. Who is the one
>> not capable of driving properly?

> Depends on your definition of 'properly'.

You might want to consider which of the drivers in question
is better trained. I think you'll find that Conor will win
that particular pissing contest.

--
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after
posting. http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

Victory is ours! Down with Eric the Half A Brain!
 
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>> No, I don't perceive added speed as implicitly wrong, I
>> perceive dangerous driving as wrong.

> Amazingly, there is a strong correlation between multiple
> speeding convictions and crashing. Speeding is one of the
> things which dangerous drivers do.

Clearly speeding is one of the things which dangerous
drivers do. To jump from there to all speeding drivers are
driving dangerously is a step of logic that takes
extrapolation to the (unjustified) extreme which is what you
are seeking to imply without actually stating.

It's more likely to be something along the lines of "there
is a strong correlation between being so unobservant as to
get repeatedly caught speeding and being a poor enough
driver to be involved in crashes"

However speed limits (and their enforcement) do us the favor
of legislating against these poor drivers and should
therefore be supported. They also give a decent guide to
drivers of the sort of hazards to expect.

However I'm not sure I've ever made a complete journey in
any car with any driver in free traffic conditions and
completely stayed within the speed limit 100% of the time
which just goes to show how speed limits as laws to be
obeyed absolutely and without question are percieved by the
population in general. To take a stance as such is I'm
afraid akin to King Canute.

Russ
 
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>> No, I don't perceive added speed as implicitly wrong, I
>> perceive dangerous driving as wrong.

> Amazingly, there is a strong correlation between multiple
> speeding convictions and crashing. Speeding is one of the
> things which dangerous drivers do.

Clearly speeding is one of the things which dangerous
drivers do. To jump from there to all speeding drivers are
driving dangerously is a step of logic that takes
extrapolation to the (unjustified) extreme which is what you
are seeking to imply without actually stating.

It's more likely to be something along the lines of "there
is a strong correlation between being so unobservant as to
get repeatedly caught speeding and being a poor enough
driver to be involved in crashes"

However speed limits (and their enforcement) do us the favor
of legislating against these poor drivers and should
therefore be supported. They also give a decent guide to
drivers of the sort of hazards to expect.

However I'm not sure I've ever made a complete journey in
any car with any driver in free traffic conditions and
completely stayed within the speed limit 100% of the time
which just goes to show how speed limits as laws to be
obeyed absolutely and without question are percieved by the
population in general. To take a stance as such is I'm
afraid akin to King Canute.

Russ
 
Just zis Guy, you know? <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> A sound point. The ABD want the Highway Code amended to
> require people to get out of the way if they are "holding
> up" faster traffic[1]; the implication, in context is
> pretty clear: they want to stand on the Highway Code to
> force those who are obeying the speed limit to give way to
> those who refuse to. Which has a certain irony.

The Highway Code already implicitly says that. There is no
mention of speed limits in Rule 145.

It also says in Rule 144, "never obstruct drivers who wish
to pass". It doesn't say it is acceptable to obstruct
drivers who wish to pass if they appear likely to exceed the
speed limit.

--
http://www.speedlimit.org.uk
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.
It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." (William
Pitt, 1783)
 
"Dave J" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> There was a discussion I wanted to start earlier about the
> number of incompetent fools behind the wheel. I don't
> count myself as a brilliant driver but I am tolerably
> competent, as are the majority of road users. It is those
> who are driving at 35mph down a clear road because they
> feel that to be the fastest speed they are capable of that
> I object to.
>

Presumably you are anxious to get these motorist off the
road so you can race ahead and sit behind the next HGV
travelling at the legal limit of 40mph for single
carriageway roads. I can't see it being an issue anywhere
else as you can pass them easily on dual carriageways and
motorways.

Tony
 
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> In MsgID<[email protected]>
> within uk.rec.driving, 'Conor' wrote:
>
> >I am driving within the law, they're not. Who is the one
> >not capable of driving properly?
>
> Depends on your definition of 'properly'.
>
In this context of this subthread the ability to drive to a
remotely satisfactory standard was meant I assume. As I
said, driving at the posted limit of 40 MPH in a 40 zone, I
hold up most of the other cars so according to you I'm not
capable of driving properly. After all didn't you say
"Anyone who has to slow to a speed that obstructs *most*
other drivers is obviously incapable of driving properly." I
have to slow from 60..the law requires me to.

--
Conor

If you're not on somebody's **** list, you're not doing
anything worthwhile.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...

> Once again though, I have the courtesy to get out of the
> way if I am obstructing someone. The speed 'limit' has no
> bearing on that at all.
>
But if you're driving at the limit you have no reason to get
of the way.

--
Conor

If you're not on somebody's **** list, you're not doing
anything worthwhile.
 
Just zis Guy, you know? <[email protected]> wrote:
> Conor wrote:
>
>>> The average journey time in the UK is 45 minutes, so
>>> saving an hour a day would require an unfeasibly
>>> large increase in average speeds. And of course what
>>> causes delay is not speed limits, but traffic jams.
>>> If only "they" would do something about all the
>>> traffic jams, eh?
>
>> In 1995 for me to get from Hull Docks to Trafford Park in
>> Manchester for 8.30am, I'd leave around 5.45-6am. In 2004
>> for me to get from Hull Docks to Trafford Park in
>> Manchester for 8.30 am I HAVE to leave by 5am otherwise I
>> stand no chance. actually have to make sure I'm past J20
>> on the M62 no later than 7.30 am otherwise I end up
>> sitting in the most horrendous traffic crawling along.
>
> Yes, you have illustrated my point perfectly. Speed limits
> and their enforcement have had no effect on your journey
> time, or at least negligible effect compared with traffic
> congestion. That is my experience as well.

Er, while Conor is on the motorway he has no opportunity to
exceed the speed limit, even if the road is empty.

If he was limited to 40 on the motorway it undoubtedly would
substantially increase his journey time.

--
http://www.speedlimit.org.uk
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.
It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." (William
Pitt, 1783)
 
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> Conor wrote:
>
> >> Since I've never seen anyone driving at 40 on a clear
> >> motorway I wouldn't know.
>
> > Oh I have..frequently, even daily in Birmingham on the
> > M6 around 10pm.
>
> Ah, theyll be on the way back from the pub, then?
>
Nah. Asian women on their way to wherever they go at 10pm.

--
Conor

If you're not on somebody's **** list, you're not doing
anything worthwhile.
 
On Mon, 17 May 2004 18:55:01 +0100, "Russ"
<[email protected]> wrote in message
<[email protected]>:

>> Amazingly, there is a strong correlation between multiple
>> speeding convictions and crashing. Speeding is one of the
>> things which dangerous drivers do.

>Clearly speeding is one of the things which dangerous
>drivers do. To jump from there to all speeding drivers are
>driving dangerously is a step of logic that takes
>extrapolation to the (unjustified) extreme which is what
>you are seeking to imply without actually stating.

No, I am stating what I am stating: there is a strong
correlation between multiple speeding convictions and
crashing. That means that dangerous drivers are more likely
to speed: a good justification for speed cameras, as they
appear, quite by chance, to catch more dangerous drivers
than safe drivers.

>It's more likely to be something along the lines of "there
>is a strong correlation between being so unobservant as to
>get repeatedly caught speeding and being a poor enough
>driver to be involved in crashes"

Unless you believe in the Laws of Physics[tm], which also
state that the faster you are going the harder it is to
avoid a crash.

>However speed limits (and their enforcement) do us the
>favor of legislating against these poor drivers and should
>therefore be supported. They also give a decent guide to
>drivers of the sort of hazards to expect.

But a yellow box is interpreted by these gits as a speed
limit and a number in a red circle is not, which indicates a
degree of contempt for the rules of the road.

>However I'm not sure I've ever made a complete journey in
>any car with any driver in free traffic conditions and
>completely stayed within the speed limit 100% of the time
>which just goes to show how speed limits as laws to be
>obeyed absolutely and without question are percieved by the
>population in general. To take a stance as such is I'm
>afraid akin to King Canute.

I have driven an entire journey within the limit (often).
But yes, a degree of - ahem - optimism is normal. And indeed
tolerated. You won't be nicked by a camera in a 30 limit
until you are exceeding the limit by 20% (putting you well
into the steep upsweep of the U-shaped curve), so cameras
are already targeting the most dangerous speeders and
ignoring the rest. The idea of more points for bigger speeds
is a good one, and has been suggested before (it wasn't
Phony Tony's idea so could not be adopted until it had been
forgotten and could be presented as his, obviously).

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University
 
On Mon, 17 May 2004 18:55:01 +0100, "Russ"
<[email protected]> wrote in message
<[email protected]>:

>> Amazingly, there is a strong correlation between multiple
>> speeding convictions and crashing. Speeding is one of the
>> things which dangerous drivers do.

>Clearly speeding is one of the things which dangerous
>drivers do. To jump from there to all speeding drivers are
>driving dangerously is a step of logic that takes
>extrapolation to the (unjustified) extreme which is what
>you are seeking to imply without actually stating.

No, I am stating what I am stating: there is a strong
correlation between multiple speeding convictions and
crashing. That means that dangerous drivers are more likely
to speed: a good justification for speed cameras, as they
appear, quite by chance, to catch more dangerous drivers
than safe drivers.

>It's more likely to be something along the lines of "there
>is a strong correlation between being so unobservant as to
>get repeatedly caught speeding and being a poor enough
>driver to be involved in crashes"

Unless you believe in the Laws of Physics[tm], which also
state that the faster you are going the harder it is to
avoid a crash.

>However speed limits (and their enforcement) do us the
>favor of legislating against these poor drivers and should
>therefore be supported. They also give a decent guide to
>drivers of the sort of hazards to expect.

But a yellow box is interpreted by these gits as a speed
limit and a number in a red circle is not, which indicates a
degree of contempt for the rules of the road.

>However I'm not sure I've ever made a complete journey in
>any car with any driver in free traffic conditions and
>completely stayed within the speed limit 100% of the time
>which just goes to show how speed limits as laws to be
>obeyed absolutely and without question are percieved by the
>population in general. To take a stance as such is I'm
>afraid akin to King Canute.

I have driven an entire journey within the limit (often).
But yes, a degree of - ahem - optimism is normal. And indeed
tolerated. You won't be nicked by a camera in a 30 limit
until you are exceeding the limit by 20% (putting you well
into the steep upsweep of the U-shaped curve), so cameras
are already targeting the most dangerous speeders and
ignoring the rest. The idea of more points for bigger speeds
is a good one, and has been suggested before (it wasn't
Phony Tony's idea so could not be adopted until it had been
forgotten and could be presented as his, obviously).

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University
 
In news:[email protected],
Tony Raven <[email protected]> typed:
>
> Presumably you are anxious to get these motorist off the
> road so you can race ahead and sit behind the next HGV
> travelling at the legal limit of 40mph for single
> carriageway roads. I can't see it being an issue anywhere
> else as you can pass them easily on dual carriageways and
> motorways.

Ha! I don't think I've ever seen an HGV doing 40mph or less
on a single carriageway. The one that I saw nearly taking
out a Jaguar over a blind brow today was storming along so
fast I think its speed limiter must have been broken.
(Fortunately it was back on its side of the road by the time
it could have knock me off (my bike) with its wind shadow).

That said, of course people should be patient and ready to
tolerate that. But there really are very few heavily
trafficked windy single carriageway roads these days that
are the only opportunity for getting long distances between
places, so it's best to just be patient, because it's only
going to be a small proportion of your driven miles and only
add a tiny proportion to the time spent travelling.

A
 
In news:[email protected],
Tony Raven <[email protected]> typed:
>
> Presumably you are anxious to get these motorist off the
> road so you can race ahead and sit behind the next HGV
> travelling at the legal limit of 40mph for single
> carriageway roads. I can't see it being an issue anywhere
> else as you can pass them easily on dual carriageways and
> motorways.

Ha! I don't think I've ever seen an HGV doing 40mph or less
on a single carriageway. The one that I saw nearly taking
out a Jaguar over a blind brow today was storming along so
fast I think its speed limiter must have been broken.
(Fortunately it was back on its side of the road by the time
it could have knock me off (my bike) with its wind shadow).

That said, of course people should be patient and ready to
tolerate that. But there really are very few heavily
trafficked windy single carriageway roads these days that
are the only opportunity for getting long distances between
places, so it's best to just be patient, because it's only
going to be a small proportion of your driven miles and only
add a tiny proportion to the time spent travelling.

A
 
In article <[email protected]>,
peter@xyz_ringtail.fsnet.co.uk says...
> Er, while Conor is on the motorway he has no opportunity
> to exceed the speed limit, even if the road is empty.
>
However I can do 56MPH and the journey time has
definitely increased although I'm not sure of its
relevence to the point.

I was trying to think of a better example in the car but I
only really drive it when its quiet.

--
Conor

If you're not on somebody's **** list, you're not doing
anything worthwhile.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
peter@xyz_ringtail.fsnet.co.uk says...
> Er, while Conor is on the motorway he has no opportunity
> to exceed the speed limit, even if the road is empty.
>
However I can do 56MPH and the journey time has
definitely increased although I'm not sure of its
relevence to the point.

I was trying to think of a better example in the car but I
only really drive it when its quiet.

--
Conor

If you're not on somebody's **** list, you're not doing
anything worthwhile.
 
On Mon, 17 May 2004 19:36:55 +0100, Conor <[email protected]>
wrote in message <[email protected]>:

>> >> Since I've never seen anyone driving at 40 on a clear
>> >> motorway I wouldn't know.
>> > Oh I have..frequently, even daily in Birmingham on the
>> > M6 around 10pm.
>> Ah, theyll be on the way back from the pub, then?
>Nah. Asian women on their way to wherever they go at 10pm.

Ah, now I have a dilemma. On the one hand, I am a bleeding-
heart liberal and steadfastly opposed to any form of racist
stereotyping. On the other, I vivdly remember my brother-in
law (17st) driving me (then 16st) and my other bro-in-law
(20st plus) up a long hill in a Nissan Sunny 1.4 at 50mph
and falling rapidly. On asking him why he didn't put it in
third and floor it, he answered "I already have!"

The largest number of people I have seen get out of a single
Nissan Sunny was twelve.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University
 
On Mon, 17 May 2004 19:28:50 +0100, "PeterE"
<peter@xyz_ringtail.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
<[email protected]>:

>Er, while Conor is on the motorway he has no opportunity to
>exceed the speed limit, even if the road is empty. If he
>was limited to 40 on the motorway it undoubtedly would
>substantially increase his journey time.

<whoop!> <whoop!> Straw Man Alert!

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University
 
On Mon, 17 May 2004 19:28:50 +0100, "PeterE"
<peter@xyz_ringtail.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
<[email protected]>:

>Er, while Conor is on the motorway he has no opportunity to
>exceed the speed limit, even if the road is empty. If he
>was limited to 40 on the motorway it undoubtedly would
>substantially increase his journey time.

<whoop!> <whoop!> Straw Man Alert!

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
Re: Dozy motorists ignorant of speed limit laws.
Replies
0
Views
488
UK and Europe
Just zis Guy, you know?
J
D
Re: Dozy motorists ignorant of speed limit laws.
Replies
0
Views
538
UK and Europe
dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers
D
T
Re: Dozy motorists ignorant of speed limit laws.
Replies
7
Views
609
UK and Europe
Gawnsoft
G
J
Re: Dozy motorists ignorant of speed limit laws.
Replies
149
Views
4K
UK and Europe
Dave J
D
A
Re: Dozy motorists ignorant of speed limit laws.
Replies
167
Views
5K
UK and Europe
Gawnsoft
G
R
Cyclists are being tricked (was Dozy motorists ignorant of speed limit laws).
Replies
14
Views
747
UK and Europe
Simon Mason
S
C
Cyclists/motorists - What Do You Honestly Think
Replies
7
Views
2K
Commuting and Road Safety
sunshiney
sunshiney
Headless Ned
Article calls for cyclists to be treated the same as motorists
Replies
5
Views
2K
Road Cycling
Corzhens
Corzhens
D
Why aren't disabled cyclists treated the same as disabled motorists?
Replies
67
Views
2K
UK and Europe
Doug
D
J
Re: Who decided that all motorists were criminals?
Replies
0
Views
764
UK and Europe
John Hearns
J
Top Bottom Back