to presume NO ONE speeds ever on mn

[Jedward]

or at least admits to it.

Here's a story for you...

A friend was with his two daughters, one 8 years old, the other 11. He was about to cross the road at a pelican crossing when his 11 year old asked him, "Daddy, please can I press the button?". He said, of course, so his DD pressed the button and then just went. Without looking. Right into the path of a car whose driver had no choice - she ran straight into her. The driver was doing dead on 30 miles per hour. My friend's DD was thrown scores of yards down the road.

If that woman had been exceeding the speed limit, even by just a couple of miles per hour, my friend's DD would doubtless have been killed (according to the police and medics at the time). As it was she was a very lucky girl who escaped with some severe bruising and some concussion. I think the damage to her father's mental well being was considerably worse!

That is a true story, and happened in the past year.

That is a scary story and illustrates how accidents can so easily happen. However, the woman was driving close to a paedestrian crossing and although she was driving dead-on 30 mph she should also have been looking out to anticipate things like people walking out on the crossing directly in front. Even at 30 mph, your friend's dd still was very, very lucky to escape with minor bruising.

I ride motorbike and when I was having training, one of the first things I was told with respect to emergency stops was "if you are riding in a built up area, with a 30 mph speed limit and there are children walking along the road, perhaps on their way to school, then one of them steps out in front of you, should you do an emergency stop?" the answer, perhaps surprisingly is "no". Why? because you should be riding in such a way as to anticipate that in that situation, a child stepping out is possible and therefore you shouldn't be caught unaware.

koh, no deliberate misinterpretation, i assure you. your point is, you say, that 'slow does not necessarily = safe' however i would contend that slower = most definitely safer, especially for the people you mention, who have somehow managed to pass their test despite having no awareness of the road whatsoever.

thank god that most people nowadays are in those fancy psychic 2002 cars that fembear drives.

AitchTwoToTangOh - personally I would argue that those people with no perception of what is going on around them should get off the road full stop. The idea that they are somehow safe if they are going slower is a false sense of security. They are a liability on the road and it is their perception skills which should be worked on, not their speed.

Someone recently told me how "safe" a driver she was because she drives very slow (she regularly causes traffic jams. In the next breath she then went on to explain that she found it difficult to hold her yoghurts whilst she was driving . I mean, how is that safe? But, hey ho, she will only hit people slowly.

is this satire?

Knackered, I am sure that just as many people who break the speed limits have similar levels of perception to those who observe the limits (or "drive slow"). They are not mutually exclusive. In fact, one could argue that people who observe the speed limits are at least perceptive enough to know what the actual limit is, rather than those who ignore the signs and reminders.

Slower does not necessarily mean that an accident will not occur. But it does decrease the risk of serious injuries and fatalities.

I would argue that the least perceptive are those that drive the slowest! This is because those without the perception skills are at least inwardly aware of the fact that they are bad drivers even if they don't want to admit it to anyone else.

I think the point others are trying to make (which I agree with), is that we should ALL be driving to the conditions of the road! f it is safe to drive along a particular stretch of road at 70mph (despite a 60mph limit) then there is nothing wrong with doing so. By the same token though, I might drive at 20mph in a 60 limit if I can see hazards/bad weather etc.

Speed in these situations is NOT the problem. Lack of perception & driver confidence is!!!

But my arguement is not about people driving the slowest being the most perceptive. My arguement is that people who drive within the speed limit will probably be involved in less fatal accidents than those who drive above the speed limit.

Just because you choose to do 30mph in a 30 speed limit does not make you a 'slow' driver!

Honestly - that is a true story. I was absolutely gobsmacked that she thought she was a good driver tbh.

I'm not saying that those who drive faster have better perception, but pugandseals has put the point I was trying to get across so much better than I can or have.

yes, but pugsandseals point is a fairly nonsensical one, given that as a 'good' driver she cannot exclude less good ones from the road with her if they've passed their test.

so if everyone's going slower when the inevitable accident occurs, fewer people will die.

Thank you KOH and P&S for arguing the case in my absence.

I think that some people have been sucked in by the Govt's false logic. They say that more-dangerous accidents happen at higher speeds, therefore it is high speed that is dangerous. This is not true: it is dangerous driving that is dangerous. We have all seen YouTube clips where little old ladies create mayhem at only 5mph.
It is driver ability and perception that is most important, not what speed they are doing. I like your emergency stop example KOH: it is spot-on.

oh GOD, no it's not, it assumes that people should be perfect drivers at all times, which because they are people is impossible. it's, like, the most bonkersly specious argument ever, proves that the instructor was an utter nob and was frankly only worthy of Alan Partridge.

Carry on as you are fembear. I am sure you will be just fine. In your 2002 plate car.

Actually on a bike, for your own safety, never mind that of others on the road, you do need to be much more aware of your surroundings than in a car. If not, there is a very real chance that you will die.

I'm not saying that you can be perfect at all times, but, I am saying that because of the damage being in charge of any motor vehicle can do, you need to drive according to the situation. If you are driving near a paedestrian crossing, don't just think "its 30 mph here and I'm (smugly) doing 25 mph so I'm fine" - no, look and check whether someone might be about to step out on the road and be ready to act on it. Likewise if the motorway is busy don't think "I'm fine because I'm only doing 60 mph" if the conditions dictate you can only do 40 safely.

On the other hand, if someone is driving on a motorway in the middle of the night and it is a completely clear road, why is 80 instead of 70 so bad?

sorry, just to be clear, who on this thread is suggesting that you get a free pass on all the other driving-y things like watching out for pedestrians arsing around at traffic lights just cos you're going at the speed limit?

is it not the point that one should be doing all those things AND driving under the speed limit, so that in the event of an unseen piano falling out of the sky and your spider senses not picking it up, fewer people die?

and on a clear motorway with no other vehicles, on a dark night in perfect driving conditions, rock on, go at 80. does the average mner find themselves in this situation very often?

this thread is a bit like when americans dribble out lines like 'it's not guns that kill, it's people'...

So, in summary:

We believe that people should drive with regard to prevailing hazards and try to anticipate and therefore avoid accidents.

Aitch believes that accidents are 'inevitable' but we should try to make them only minor-injury.

are you kidding me?

you do understand the meaning of the word 'accident', don't you?

"and on a clear motorway with no other vehicles, on a dark night in perfect driving conditions, rock on, go at 80"

OK, so you say that in certain situations it is OK to break the speed limit provided that the conditions allow.

That is exactly my point. Also that just because you observe the speed limit, does not necessarily make you safe by default. I am glad to see we agree.

No, in summary fembear:

We believe that driving in a 2002 plate car will mean that you won't have an accident because the speed limits were designed for cars from the early 20th century, and are therefore irrelevant to you.

no, you rock on, you're going to anyway. it's another specious point from you...

in that if you come flying off the road, koh, you'll have only yourself to blame and won't kill anyone else, so why should i care?

Gosh, what's with all the aggression? There really is no call for nastiness. I was just making a point, illustrated with a few personal examples.

It seems that we come to the same conclusion in the end (i.e. drive to the conditions of the road). I really don't see the need for a personal attack from you.

if you think it was a personal attack, please report it. you snippily proposed that i agreed with you about speeding under certain conditions, and i wanted to clarify that the main condition was that you were the driver taking the risk.

once again, i do not agree with you that we 'should drive to the conditions of the road', i am very much of the opinion that we should drive to the speed limit and no more. i'm baffled by your persistent assertion that i agree with you, when in fact i firmly disagree.

those who seem to be arguing that they can disregard the speed limits as they are such good drivers they are above the law....

ANYONE can have an accident, no matter how careful. That should be obvious by the fact it is called an accident. Why WOULDN'T you stick to the speed limit when they have been proven to decrease the level of harm in the event of an accident?

And what is the benefit of speeding, it often makes negligible difference to a journey time (not unless you are speeding considerably), certainly not enough difference for it to be worth risking someone's life.

It could be you that knocks someone down, imagine standing up in court and saying that 'well yes I was speeding, but I judged the conditions on the road and decided that as I was such a good driver I would never have an accident so the law didn't apply to me...". and yes it could happen to you, to think otherwise is of itself a very dangerous mindset.

I didn't say you should disregard speed limits. What I did say was that obeying the speed limit does not make you immune. There are plenty of cases where you should actually drive well BELOW the speed limit and you can't simply use "sorry I hit your child, but I was observing the speed limit" as an excuse.

It absolutely terrifies me to think that one of my dc's could be hit by someone driving 30mph just because the driver thought that was OK even though the street/situation did not allow.

Likewise the only time I have been in an car accident, someone rear-ended me at walking pace because he wasn't being very observant in a traffic jam.