To be annoyed at driving 91 mph on a 70 mph road.

[Jupitertomars]

On a 70mph road with myself in the back as 7 month of DD was crying so 5 year old is in the front.

I was furious. OH rolls eyes when I shout "wow!! Slow down! Your going 91 mph!!"

Then give him death stare.

He replies "stop looking at me like that. I'm not going to crash."

It makes me so frustrated as he just doesn't take it serious.

I know it's common to go slightly over the speed limit but this was too far for me. It's really annoyed me but I don't want it to ruin our day out.

Thanks Narp but I bet that I get shot down in flames though!

HelpTheTigers

I think your post is a very valid perspective...

however :)
Some of the cases that I read about when in the Police department, involved ordinary drivers who had failed to notice the petrol-head driving fast in the outside lane or who had been intimidated or surprised by them. Both sides were responsible for the accident, but the outcome was always the main issue.

I think this is where the subtleties are often missed - in an example like this - this is both excess speed & bad driving - I have a very strong belief that those who wish to drive (any car / any speed / any where) should take responsibility not only for how they drive, but also for how their driving affects others - if they fail to do that - e.g. driving fast and intimidating someone else - then actually the speed at which they are travelling is not the main issue - their bad driving is the main issue...

If you worked in a police department I will assume that you have had contact with some of the police advanced drivers - they are able to drive at serious speeds - double the speed limit+ and do so in such a way as to not intimidate / cause issues with other drivers... so the speed number is not the issue - it is the bad driving...

If I were to do 90mph down the motorway like the OP's husband, right up on the tail of the cars in front - putting pressure on them to move out of the way, or changing lanes frequently to get past them - that is bad driving... If I were to do the same 90mph, but courteously - giving a lot of space for others, anticipating their need to move out to pass a lorry, backing off, using the speed where there is space and slowing down where there is not - then that is a totally different (and probably very safe) drive

so, it is not the speed that is the issue - it is the driver / how they drive...

so by prioritising the safety and comfort of the passengers & other road users - after that has been taken into account, if it is safe to do 90mph, then there is little issue... - but if both those things are being ignored, the issue is the same issue whether at 20mph or 90mph - it is a problem of bad driving

Well, the police advanced drivers were pretty much aware that they too were intimidating to other road users quite often. It wasn't their fault (I can probably be viewed as slightly biased here as my dad was a police advanced driver!) but in reality, I don't believe that any road user, no matter how competent, can claim to be fully in control and concentrating 100%, all of the time. I don't claim to be able to do that either, and I have to admit to speeding on more than the odd occasion. Subtleties are wasted when there is a serious crash and even minor ones can have a deep impact upon those involved.
I really did mean that we could all benefit from working in a Police Dept where they dealt with speeding offences and accident reports. It was more disturbing than I can explain on here and it certainly changed my attitude.

ordinary drivers who had failed to notice the petrol-head driving fast in the outside lane or who had been intimidated or surprised by them.

I don't drive fast enough to be invisible. If an "ordinary driver" doesn't check their blind spot before changing lanes (for example) then the fault is 100% theirs.

but in reality, I don't believe that any road user, no matter how competent, can claim to be fully in control and concentrating 100%, all of the time

really agree with this...

however, I think that what we are doing in society is reacting to fear / emotion / lack of understanding - and dealing with the symptoms and easy targets - in vilifying speeds above a certain level - the reality is that when speed is inappropriate (i.e. dangerous) it always has an underlying cause of bad driving - just in making that choice to drive at an inappropriate speed, it is bad driving

however that doesn't mean that at other times / in other conditions that speed will be equally risky or dangerous - and a part of the advanced driving concept (whether police or civilian) is that the more competence you add to the driver, either:

• the higher level of contingency / lower risk
• or higher performance for the same risk & contingency

so, if there is an acknowledgement that actually the underlying issue is the driver / driving ability - then that is what we should be tackling, and as a part of that inappropriate speed would naturally be dealt with - but instead we have a society that says that speed is evil when a) most drivers break the limit and b) the vast majority of the population know that the vast majority of the time it really is not dangerous / an issue... and the stats back that up...

but agree - the more we can do to improve concentration and control the better... but that is a more complex task to tackle...

In an ideal world, all drivers would be competent, be fully aware of absolutely everything around them, be capable of stopping on a sixpence when (say) a deer jumps out into the road or (as happened with my brother) a drunken man stepped into the motorway and was hit by a 4x4 and catapulted over the barrier into the front of his car.
Unfortunately, this is not an ideal world and we have no control over others' behaviours and driving skills / habits. Having said that, the law does have a level of input and for that, I'm grateful.

The ordinary driver 'pulling out' or whatever, may or not be at fault to a greater or lesser extent, but that also depends upon the speed of the merchant tanking up the outside lane. Neither party will be counting the degrees of fault if they are both dead. I know that this outcome is rare thankfully, but it is still a reality for far too many families. Brain damage, paralysis, severe injuries etc are more common but equally terrible.
I'm no angel but do recognise that if I'm driving fast, I'm in the wrong.

What you say makes sense - however there is no such thing as risk-free motoring - all you can do is mitigate risk...

the examples you mention where no preparation or skill can prevent them are risks we all must acknowledge and accept as a part of driving - however they are not speed related - in fact - had a driver in those situations been going slower or faster they would have been in a different spot and not had the accident... so it is as accurate to say drive faster as it would be to say drive slower...

the ordinary driver pulling out - if the 'merchant tanking up the outside lane' hits them that has nothing to do with speed - everything to do with bad driving - a driver is responsible for how their actions affect others - both as the person pulling out - but equally as the person driving faster in the next lane - who should be looking ahead and anticipating what every vehicle might / could do...

these types of accident have nothing to do with speed - they can all happen at 60mph on a motorway or at 80mph - as shown above, accidents actually caused by excessive speed are in the minority...

the other factor is severity of accident where speed level does have an impact - however there has to be a cut off point we consider acceptable / unacceptable, and the logical question is why should it be 70mph on a motorway - that was set c. 50 years ago - cars are vastly safer now, they stop in 1/3 of the distance / their crash safety is completely different, you even have cars that will do the stopping and avoidance for you! So if 70mph was logical for safety reasons 50 years ago, it is probably accurate to say that 90+ would be the equivalent now... so why isn't it changed? - lack of political will / emotional and irrational lack of reasoning and a very vocal minority...

people are very quick to jump on someone for 'breaking the speed limit' despite:

• most people doing it
• most fatalities being cause by other issues and below the relevant speed limit
• car safety having dramatically improved
• there being little rational argument for the 'speed kills' mantra - much like 'guns kill' - they don't a human has to make an inappropriate decision...

so, yes someone doing 90 on the motorway is breaking the law, but are they unsafe - not necessarily.

This argument can go on all day but I will have to get off my lazy arse and do some work here!

There are so many other points to use in addition to the handful of selected examples that have been dissected and analysed, all saying that speed factors don't matter, if the speeder is competent. My dad was a very good driver and used the same argument frequently He was also rather scornful of those who he considered 'bad' drivers. I don't think that he was quite so keen on defending speeding when he hit a patch of oil or mud on the motorway and wrote off his car. His life was saved by airbags and then paramedics. If he had been driving within the limits, he would have been less likely to have had such a major crash, damage a long section of the central barrier (!!) and caused considerable costs to our public services. The road was empty at the time.
Sorry, but I have to stick with my point that unless I'm on a race track, a road is not an appropriate place to speed or even to indulge my inner demon. It's good to keep an open mind about things (such as speeding) but not so open that my brains would fall out.
Work / cleaning / tidying / decorating and all of those other jobs that I'm avoiding, beckon.......

the problem is - that is logical on the surface - but... it doesn't define that speed that should be okay

so if he hit oil - what speed would have been okay? what speed was he doing? should we say that no-one can do more than 15mph in case they hit oil? should we say that a motorcyclist should have a lower speed limit as they are more vulnerable (esp. to diesel or oil on the road)

the issue is that you can not derive absolute conclusions with looking at the full picture - yes there is a risk in driving, but where is the acceptable risk level? make it low and you have no fatalities and the country comes to a stand-still - high enough to allow people to move freely and there will be risk - you can not remove it totally...

we can already see that the stats show a low % of fatalities from excess speed caused accidents, yes it will happen and yes every one of those stories is personal and horrific for someone / some family - but that doesn't mean that as a society we should push everything down to a 'safe' level - all we are doing is building a society where no-one is given the skill to manage risk, social and mainstream media make a big deal about specific incidents and as a result we change society - lets build a strong society instead, acknowledge that there is risk, and learn to deal with it...

the simple reality is that you are more likely to end up in A&E as a result of an injury from trousers or ladders in the home than from driving above the speed limit - so lets stop demonising speed and start protesting about trousers...

I just read 13 pages of titty post rationalizing and justifying why she is breaking/ above the law because she is super special? Lovely lady, if you had a decent argument it would have been made on page one. You are not above the law just because you don't agree with it. That's not how it works.

Works in Germany

But in Germany (generally), people drive very safely; they don't eat, drink, talk on the phone while driving, they keep two hands on the wheel except when changing gears etc.

Please note the "generally"

it is a shame that you don't actually bother to read the thread...
I am very clear that an inappropriate choice of speed is itself bad driving - but that does not mean that just being above the speed limit is itself an inappropriate choice of speed - illegal, yes; but not always inappropriate.

equally a speed such as 60mph in fog would be legal and therefore apparently acceptable with your logic, but could be equally inappropriate and dangerous...

which would you prefer - that people choose their speed based on legality - regardless of whether it is safe, or chose based on safety - regardless of legality?

your logic:

• 60 in the fog - bang, dead
• 60 in unrestricted roadworks - bang, dead
• 60 in slow moving traffic - changing lanes frequently to get ahead - bang, dead
• 50 round a tight bend on a country road - horse the other side - bang, dead
• 28 past a school as children are crossing - bang, dead

but hey - it is okay because they are all legal... they are within the speed limit

my logic:

• fog - drive to a safe distance and speed, that might be no more than 5mph - safe
• roadworks - slow down to protect roadworkers - safe
• in slow traffic, be patient, give space, drive to the conditions - maybe 25 / 30 / 40 etc. - safe
• tight bends - slow considerably, always enough space to stop - may be as low as 10mph - safe
• past a school with children crossing, maybe 5mph - 10mph maximum - safe

• open motorway with no other traffic on a dry day in a safe car with the skills to handle it - hey, do whatever speed is safe, 70? / 80? / 90? - doesn't bother me - safe.
• motorway with little traffic - cruise at 70-80 - safe
• open country A or B road with good observation and no hazards - 70 to overtake and then back to 60? - safe

are you really saying that observing the speed limit is the primary consideration - when 65% of fatalities are caused by bad driving (below the speed limit) - sorry, I would prefer to see people driving well, I really don't care if they choose to break a law as long as safety is the number one consideration...

drive faster if you want - but also drive slower - society's issue is all those people who smugly drive around saying that they are legal because they are below the speed limit but are actually driving badly - as the stats show above they cause c. 5x the number of fatalities...

sorry -that was a response to Ifitquackslikeaduck

My ex used to speed up and drive close to cars and then brake sharply if I was falling asleep during a motorway journey. I was supposed to stay awake to talk to him. If I was driving, I was criticised constantly.

and i'll repeat myself:

It's entirely possible to be a good driver AND NOT obey the speed limits. Those two things are not mutually exclusive.

equally

It's entirely possible to obey the speed limits AND be a bad driver. Those two things are not mutually exclusive.

I don't deny that a good driver can obey the speed limits - in fact if you actually bothered to read the thread you will see that I said that a number of times - good driving includes choosing an appropriate speed for conditions etc.

However it is good of you to acknowledge that speed and driving ability are not linked - pretty much what I have been saying all along... and in this country we have a far bigger issue with bad drivers than with people breaking the speed limit - so lets not get hung up on speed limits...

and I am not justifying myself - I am not saying that I drive above the speed limits... I am merely presenting fact - maybe you just don't like facts breaking your dearly held theories? If you can present facts to support your belief that everyone should drive below the speed limit because they are instantly safer, and because otherwise they will instantly die - which seems to be your implication, then I would love to see those actual real facts... until then the facts from the police and government show that breaking the speed limit is a c. 5x less significant cause of fatalities than bad driving - so lets focus on improving driving which will save far more lives...

mind you, if you are offended by a little smiley face on a forum you might just have some deeper issues to sort out...

"It's entirely possible to be a good driver AND NOT obey the speed limits. Those two things are not mutually exclusive".

I would add that driving badly at high speeds is more likely to cause serious accidents than driving badly at lower speeds. Damage caused increases exponentially with the increase in speed.

The current limits may be "random" but they form the basis of all the crash testing done on new car models. The evidence base is huge - and there really isn't any justification for speeding.

akkakk the smiley face? Someone tells a story about their visit to an injured friend in hospital hit by a speeding car, you reply with a smiling face, and then a self satisfied snark. What is that about?

what?! where? Ifitquackslikeaduck hasn't posted such a story... and my response was to her post... as I clarified... nope, just looked again, still can't see it... ho hum

anyway, it is getting a little bit tedious presenting facts in a discussion with people who have an irrational view and who think they are right because they believe it emotionally...

in driving, safety always comes first, therefore speed is irrelevant, because if safety is the priority, the chosen speed should never reduce safety... when drivers don't drive in that way it is bad driving...

A non issue for me, both DH and I would feel comfortable at this speed if traffic conditions allow.