Speed limits - please explain

[wherestheaircon]

You're driving through the country roads. You're in a 30mph zone going through a school - fair dos - best not to risk any kids running into the road so let's stick to the limit. HOWEVER. You drive another mile or so and pass a clearly labelled "40"mph but you carry on doing 30 - sometimes you even dip down to 25, and break randomly with no reasoning (to add, I'm keeping a very reasonable and safe distance between our vehicles). The roads aren't that busy - couple of cars here and there but it's definitely safe to go up to 40mph otherwise they wouldn't put that restriction on.

So why in the world are you STILL doing 30 when you've entered a 40 zone??!!! You even drive through a 60mph zone and creep up to 40mph but no further than that. I am being so genuine when I ask that, if this sounds like you, why? I'm sure if there's a reasonable explanation I will be ok...

I drive the speed limit (weather & conditions allowing), and usually get a lecture from my husband about "driving too fast".

I just probed this in more detail and basically he doesn't care what the sign says, he cares about whether or not he feels he can react in time to something happening (for him, this is about 40 max, unless on a long, straight motorway).

I feel I can react in time at the speeds I drive (slow down for blind curves, narrow lanes etc), but I can see why some people either genuinely can't, or equally possibly lack confidence that they can.

A few angry posters on this thread, probably the same in their cars, honking, flashing lights at other drivers etc.

RingtheBells

Yep you can tell can't you?

I was doing 60 on a 60 earlier, dickhead approaches at speed and gets right up my backside, road drops to 40, dickhead decides their not slowing and tries to force me to continue at 60, I slow to 35 just as we hit the 40. Dickhead pulls out, pits foot down, screams passed me and then back on front of me just before a blind corner.
I catch up eventually as they're sat waiting to turn right and I pass nice and calmly with a little smile for them.
No reason, no excuse, they are a jack ass.

A few years ago, but I can still clearly remember it, I was driving down a local dual carriageway very early in the morning. It wasn't properly dark, but the sun hadn't fully risen. The road was completely clear and dry, so I was going at 70mph with my headlights on.

A couple of miles down the road, I had to slam on my brakes and check in a split second that the outside lane was free - thankfully, it was, and swerve into it at the last minute, as a milk float appeared out of nowhere, travelling in the same direction as me but at 10mph.

Now, that was a near miss and could very easily have resulted in a crash. It was effectively the equivalent of me driving (legally) at 60mph and discovering that somebody had just built a wall right in the middle of the carriageway, with no warning whatsoever.

I'm genuinely interested to hear people's thoughts as to whose fault it would have been if I had crashed into the milk float. I'm expecting that people will say it would have 100% been my fault, as I was the one behind and I should have anticipated the vehicle in front (which I did, thankfully, just in time); but where do you draw the line? If somebody had left a very large stationary obstacle in the middle of the road, as opposed to a vehicle that was moving, but only just, would that have made a difference?

I was driving down a local dual carriageway very early in the morning. It wasn't properly dark, but the sun hadn't fully risen. The road was completely clear and dry, so I was going at 70mph with my headlights on.

A couple of miles down the road, I had to slam on my brakes

If you'd have hit him, the first question the police would ask is why didn't you see him?
The road was clear, the sun, was rising, you had your lights on, dual carriage ways rarely have side roads. So how did you not see it before needing emergency manoeuvre?

If you want to speed, go on a track - DH and I go regularly because we do enjoy speeding but we are not manic drivers.

But you seem to be ignoring the obvious fact that the vast majority of people are driving because they've left Place A and need/want to get to Place B quickly and efficiently. If conditions are good and the speed limit has been set for the road (not including windy little lanes that have a NSL by default rather than because they have been assessed and awarded an actual specified limit), then that is generally the marker of how efficiently the road can be travelled.

If people genuinely didn't care how long the journey took and had nothing else they had to do with their time, why wouldn't they just walk?

Going to a race track to drive very fast may be an enjoyable leisure activity for many, but driving round in laps and ending up back where you started isn't actually the reason why most people tend to travel in the first place.

DH is bad for trying to force people to go faster, I've been saying for ages, at some point someone will break & it will be your fault.

If you'd have hit him, the first question the police would ask is why didn't you see him?
The road was clear, the sun, was rising, you had your lights on, dual carriage ways rarely have side roads. So how did you not see it before needing emergency manoeuvre?

It took me by surprise and I do accept that I would have been at fault (although, as I remember, his lights were extremely dim), but how would you think if, say, it had been a cow that had wandered on to a 60mph road and somebody hit it? Would you say that the driver was still 100% at fault for not seeing a stationary object in time to avoid it? I'm not trying to exonerate myself of any blame, had there been any, but would you honestly say that travelling at 10mph on a dual carriageway (with or without adequate lights) in a vehicle wide enough to take an entire lane (i.e. not a bike) is in no way a potential hazard?

They never have traffic lights or roundabouts on dual carriageways without giving a lot of advance warning; how would you think if the authorities suddenly constructed a new roundabout in the middle of a dual carriageway overnight and gave no indication of it until you actually arrived at it?

I'd there is a hazard in the road that is perfectly visible and you hit it, how can it be anything but your fault?
If your driving fast on a road where hazards can't be seen and you hit one. How can it be anything but your fault?
If an animal runs out in front of you and you have no time to react, that's an accident, it happens.

Let's be honest, you're not going to get many milk floats on a dual carriage way, but to say it took you by surprise, points to you being distracted or not being observant, they're not exactly small are they?

This happens every night on my way home. Drives me mad.

National speed limit roads are just roads that haven't been assessed for a speed limit, it doesn't mean that 60mph is safe, it just means the volume of traffic compared to the number of accidents/probability of risk hasn't exceeded the evaluation threshold

Should you drive at 10mph on the motorway? Of course not.
And you should bugger off from the middle lane as soon as you finish overtaking.

Is it a big deal if someone drives at 30 in a 40mph zone? No, it's not.
Going into a rage about it is unnecessary and makes you the bad driver.

Should you blindly follow the speed LIMIT signs and your sat nat? Probably not...

WeBuiltThisBuffetOnSausageRoll

It's your fault. You somehow managed to not see a large vehicle on the road, in the early morning when it wasn't fully dark. You should have seen him if you had actually been paying attention. You clearly weren't despite what you think. It's not great that he was doing 10mph but there is no law to say he can't be there, and it's not like he was in the over taking lane. Sometimes you have to go on a dual carriageway and can't help it. If it had been an animal, completely different. They can react suddenly to the noise of a car and run out. I saw a woman recently hit a deer on the road and she had literally no time to even brake, it just leapt out as she got there and went under the car straight away. She was in shock for a bit, had to calm her down and stayed with her until the police came and moved her car off the road. You can't control animals and what they do, that is an accident. Although I have seen a video recently that was very bad driving and not an accident at all, they very nearly killed two people and their horses with how shit they drove. Had they been able to control their car around a bend and not slid off their side and across the road, they wouldn't have hit those people and the horses.

God this thread makes me wish we retested people every 10 years. The majority of you 'it's a limit not a target' people would thankfully be off the road. And yeah you would fail, for hesitating and causing an obstruction for no good reason.

God this thread makes me wish we retested people every 10 years. The majority of you 'it's a limit not a target' people would thankfully be off the road. And yeah you would fail, for hesitating and causing an obstruction for no good reason.

My son has just done his driving test. Part of the route is a 60 mph road (wide and straight) with a couple of roundabouts. His instructor had emphasised several times that if he didn't drive at or very near 60 where possible, he'd be failed. Same with a short stretch of dual carriageway with a 50 mph that it fed onto.

They want you to prove you understand when it's safe to drive at the speed limits and when/why you need to drive more slowly due to actual or likely hazards.

I don't understand people saying "it's a limit not a target" on these threads.

If conditions are good and the road isn't otherwise dangerous (eg single track or hairpin bends) you should be aiming to go at a decent speed.

I took my driving test two years ago and one of the routes I practised had a 60mph limit. When I was practising on there with my instructor he said unless there was good reason not to (eg bad weather) you should drive as close to the limit as possible or you'd fail for not making reasonable progress.

Instead of retests every ten years, I'd put black boxes in very single car that monitors speed and GPS position.
It would then know which road you're on, what the limit is and could issue tickets and license points as soon as the car exceeds the limit of the road.

How many people would then be off the road I wonder?

Agree with OP. Her summary: Dipping down to 25 drives me crazy. I consider it bad driving.

The ones that piss me off are those that do 40 in the 60&50 zones then continue to do 40 in a 30 zone.

@MonkeyToesOfDoom and when people go significantly under. Not everyone who wants to travel at a reasonable and legal limit are speed demons.

The ones that piss me off are those that do 40 in the 60&50 zones then continue to do 40 in a 30 zone.

Yep - so many people are in their own little world and can't be arsed to look out for road signs.

Instead of retests every ten years, I'd put black boxes in very single car that monitors speed and GPS position. It would then know which road you're on, what the limit is and could issue tickets and license points as soon as the car exceeds the limit of the road.

As long as they did the same for other bad driving practices, such as dangerously going too slow, not indicating, parking on double yellows, etc.

I take it you followed me, OP?

I drive at speeds that seem right to me, based on the condition and engine power of my vehicle, on my own level of skill, on weather/ other conditions and on my familiarity with the road. If it doesn’t suit you, when there’s a good opportunity, you should overtake. You won’t find me knowingly exceeding the speed limit, even where it is 20mph. I like to take advantage of the opportunity to increase speed where the limit is 40, 50 or more, if it is otherwise safe to do so. But if other drivers prefer not to, I consider that their business and proceed accordingly.

People are under no obligation to drive faster just to suit you and drivers like you, OP. We don’t have to bow to your will. We don’t see being overtaken as an insult to our driver-identity. Go. Go faster. But don’t expect me to drive at any speed other than that which feels comfortable to me.

What’s annoying the fuck out of me at the moment is the “Skid Risk - Max 20mph” signs that seem to have appeared all over the place. But that’s a problem for another day.

Fuck me some people are dim.

The whole "it's a limit not a target" smug brigade - anyone who is a half decent driver knows perfectly well that if a road has a 60 limit that doesn't mean you drive at 60 at all times. Of course you adjust for corners, fog, light conditions, ice, overgrown hedgerows etc etc etc. That;s what good drivers do. Irrespective of what the speed limit says.

But the fact stands that if - whatever speed you are doing - you have a large queue of traffic behind you, you are driving TOO SLOWLY. It's about being aware that you are slow. Not sitting there smugly parotting "it's a limit not a target" or "my driving is fine, the faster drivers need to work on their reaction to that". It's having the fucking common decency to recognise that you're pissing people off and to pull over and let people past.

Not too much to ask, is it?

and when people go significantly under

Nope.
There is often justification for going slower than the speed limits, especially in rural areas. Sheep on road, tractors, flooding, poor visibility etc etc.
There is not a single justification for breaking the limit ever, even on motorways.

30 in a 40 isn’t a problem. You won’t fail a test for that.
Our nearest NSL country lanes are very dangerous, and often has lots of oberturned vars in a ditch because they don’t slow down at the bends. If you take them at any more than 45 you’re in trouble!