Are you a flasher ?

Steep said:
Contradicting yourself there :D
Click to expand...

Sorry, I don't see that as a contradiction.

They are two separate statements, and while he thinks that three points are too many, they still made him think more about his speed.

The big problem with speed cameras is that you could collect 12 points from 4 cameras travelling down one or two streets in some cities, and by the time you find out, your licence is gone for 12 months. When the police stopped you roadside and gave you a ticket, there was a chance to do something about your speeding.
 
Steep said:
Contradicting yourself there :D
Click to expand...

Hi Steep:p

I was implying it was too high with respect of losing your license. I don't think 4 speeding offences in 3 years makes you a dangerous driver - is it still 12 points for a ban (sorry not totally sure)?. Four offences in one year may deserve a ban.

It helped me as I was around 24 when I got caught with a SP30. I wasn't just out of driving school as I passed at 18.

It opened my eyes as I went on to need the car for work as a Network engineer all over the UK. I drove around 80k in 6 years from that point, still carrying the three points for a couple of years.

However I still think motorways are too slow...should be a least 80MPH :shrug:
 
Let's not forget that while excess speed doesn't necessarily cause an accident, it's pretty much guaranteed to make the aftermath much worse.

And yes, I currently have points for speeding on my license and it's not the 1st time either. No, I'm not proud of it.:(
 
Arkady2 said:
There's nothing like riding a bicyle on the roads to give you a better understanding of road etiquette or the appalling lack of skill exhibited by a large percentage of drivers... Cycling on roads should be made compulsory while learning to drive, IMO...

Might even make some cylists better as well, as many of them are their own worst enemies...
Click to expand...

I think you should require at least two licenses and at least some kind of pedal bike competency test before you can use a engine driven vehicle on the road.

When you can see the road through other drivers/users eyes - I think it makes you a better driver.

I get equally annoyed by some of the cyclists manoeuvers on the road too....they should know better!
 
fabs said:
There are occasions where excessive speed has caused accidents, the consequences of which have affected those other than the driver.

Or are you saying that speeding never causes accidents?
Click to expand...


Of course I'm not but lets put things into perspective, shall we?



Here are the facts.


Based on its first survey of the causes of accidents (in 2005), the Department for Transport (DfT) has revealed that exceeding the speed limit is a factor in only two per cent of injury crashes involving drivers over the age of 25. For younger drivers, aged 17-25, the percentage is six per cent, and for the youngest, aged 17-19, it is eight per cent. Travelling too fast for the conditions, rather than exceeding the legal speed limit, is a factor in five, 11 and 14 per cent of crashes respectively.
Click to expand...

ALSO, remember that increasing speed can avoid accidents, too, but there are obviously not going to be any stats for this.


AndyB1976 said:
I think you should require at least two licenses and at least some kind of pedal bike competency test before you can use a engine driven vehicle on the road.

When you can see the road through other drivers/users eyes - I think it makes you a better driver.

I get equally annoyed by some of the cyclists manoeuvers on the road too....they should know better!
Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more. been saying that for years.

Incidentally I am an experienced Cyclist, MotorCyclist and Car Driver (+ Lorry) and have found all these experiences invaluable in helping me to drive safer.

Having to consider these road users as well as Animal, Pedestrians (young, old, idiotic Etc) AND windblown objects along with all of the other hazards that could occur at a moments notice, GATZO's are an unnecesary and potentially dangerous inclusion to our highways, IMO.
 
Last edited:
When I used to cycle to work it wasn't motorists I had a problem with but pedestrians. I often encountered them walking in the road towards me with a perfectly good pavement on either side and would refuse to get out of my way. Or the one's that would just stepped off the pavement infront of me.I nearly wiped out one woman pedestrian because she just walked straight into the road in a down pour so needless to say my braking ability was greatly reduced.
As far as being a flasher, I flash lorry drivers letting them know it's ok to move back into the slow lane after they have kindly moved to the centre lane to let me out off a slip road, I seldom flash for any other reason.
 
Arkady2 said:
There's nothing like riding a bicyle on the roads to give you a better understanding of road etiquette or the appalling lack of skill exhibited by a large percentage of drivers... Cycling on roads should be made compulsory while learning to drive, IMO...

Might even make some cylists better as well, as many of them are their own worst enemies...
Click to expand...

Agreed!! I cyced to school for 4 years before learning to drive, and was able to read the road much much better than alot of non cyclists that learnt at the same time. I even received a compliment on my readng traffic from the examiner when I passed.

When there is nothing between you and a couple of tons of metal moving at 30mph, you learn to pay attention and know when to expect people to do something daft.

I also had a friend in the year above me get put in a wheelchair after a nasty accident when on his bike, which makes you think also.

Riding a pushbike should be compulsary for a set number of hours to help people understand the roads before they take control of the 2 tons of metal.

Going back to the the origional thread, i have flashed and hav been glad of being flashed. The trick is not to thank the person giving you the warning by flashing, as it alerts the cops to the fact they are doing it.
 
fabs said:
Indeed. All I said was that sometimes, the consequences can involve more that just the driver. I never went off on a rant about speed causing accidents.
Click to expand...

OK. We'll shake on that.:love:
 
hmmmmmm cyclists without lights and cyclists who think red lights are not for them is a bane of my life!

I am sure I read somewhere recently that the derestricted autobahns of Germany are some of the safest roads in the world (will try to find it, but I may have dreamed it!) however I will concede that on those roads when things go wrong, they tend to in a very big way!

The problem I have, per se, with fixed speed camera's and the man in the van "safety" camera's is that there is no opportunity for common sense and discretion to be applied by a copper.

Plenty of roads around here when icy you wouldn't want to do 70 on, but you could, likewise, on a well lit dual carriageway at night with clear conditions and little traffic, just why is there a "safety" camera about 50 yds into the 50mph section where it reduces from 70 to 50......... oh and as for cameras are always put iup in accident blackspots...... cojones.
 
Can anyone give a valid reason for breaking the speed limit :shrug:
 
rizla01 said:
Of course I'm not but lets put things into perspective, shall we?

Here are the facts.

Quote:
Based on its first survey of the causes of accidents (in 2005), the Department for Transport (DfT) has revealed that exceeding the speed limit is a factor in only two per cent of injury crashes involving drivers over the age of 25. For younger drivers, aged 17-25, the percentage is six per cent, and for the youngest, aged 17-19, it is eight per cent. Travelling too fast for the conditions, rather than exceeding the legal speed limit, is a factor in five, 11 and 14 per cent of crashes respectively.
....
Click to expand...

Surely if those figures are correct it shows that speed limits & their enforcement works, they have reduced the number of accidents where exceeding the speed limit was a factor.

In fact if you increased the penalties for speeding you could get the figure below 2 per cent. You could even get to the ideal state where exceeding the speed limit was not a factor in any accidents :) Would people then say that it was safe to speed?

If we do away with cameras, penalties etc. then the number of accidents where exceeding the speed limit is a factor would rise.
 
Splog said:
Can anyone give a valid reason for breaking the speed limit :shrug:
Click to expand...

Being late home to tea :D

I think there are some exceptions, I did an observed ride with Kent Police last year and my bike speedo is so far out, the officer pulled in and we matched his callibrated speedo at 60 and carried on, I told him I was glad that I had a buffer, so if I was going say 70 it was more like 63.

I use speed as a tool on my bike, I'd rather be riding on my own than stuck behind some numpty using there phone or fiddling with the radio, that is generally when I speed.

At work I have digital tacho so have to be very focussed on speed, although would rather concentrate on my driving than on the speedo.

Everyone should treat being flashed as a warning to possible un seen danger, so in my eyes its a heads up for any road user, not really sure this bloke has a leg to stand on hence why he was charged.
 
rizla01 said:
Define VALID?
Click to expand...

I'm fairly sure you understand, but if not? :thinking: Try giving a good reason or give justification for exceeding the speed limit.
 
Splog said:
I'm fairly sure you understand, but if not? :thinking: Try giving a good reason or give justification for exceeding the speed limit.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure anything I can think of would be unarguably "valid" but there are places where the limits are simply unreasonable or unrequired.

An example would be a dual carraigeway not far from me. It's over a mile long without an entry or exit and the limit was 40. That was pretty much ignored by everybody and showing an unusual dose of common sense, rather than slap a camera there to cash in, the local authority raised the limit to 60.
 
Have to ask why police carry out speed traps.

If it is, as I hope, to encourage drivers to reduce their speed because it is believed (rightly or wrongly) that speed is a major factor in accidents then shouldn't the guy who flashed be applauded for helping to reduce speed?

I think it is unfortunate that the main result of being caught speeding is a fine and points. I was caught in Co. Durham and was offered, instead of a £60fine and 3 points the chance to go on driving course. It cost more (£90) but was excellent - lots of discussion on many aspects of driving and a session in a car with an advanced driving instructor.

Think it did more for my driving than a fine and points.

Dave
 
Splog said:
I'm fairly sure you understand, but if not? :thinking: Try giving a good reason or give justification for exceeding the speed limit.
Click to expand...

How can I understand, until I know from what standpoint your word VALID hails.:shrug:

I have to therefore assume that you mean in the simplest form from which I can name hundreds of valid reasons.

I am late for work?

My wife is about to give birth.

I want more time at (destination).



Do you need more?

Why do you ask?
 
Splog said:
I'm fairly sure you understand, but if not? :thinking: Try giving a good reason or give justification for exceeding the speed limit.
Click to expand...

How can I understand, until I know from what standpoint your word VALID hails.:shrug:

I have to therefore assume that you mean in the simplest form from which I can name hundreds of valid reasons.

I am late for work?

My wife is about to give birth.

I want more time at (destination).



Do you need more?

Why do you ask?

Can you give a VALID reason for driving slow enough to cause an obstruction?

I bet you can.
 
rizla01 said:
How can I understand, until I know from what standpoint your word VALID hails.:shrug:

I have to therefore assume that you mean in the simplest form from which I can name hundreds of valid reasons.

I am late for work?

My wife is about to give birth.

I want more time at (destination).



Do you need more?

Why do you ask?

Can you give a VALID reason for driving slow enough to cause an obstruction?

I bet you can.
Click to expand...

Interesting! ..... Like it or not? rules / laws are there for a reason and however much we dislike or disagree with them we are not free to not conform to those rules. All of the above answers do not justify speeding as all are down to either poor planning, disorganisation or selfishness :shrug:
 
dazzajl said:
I'm not sure anything I can think of would be unarguably "valid" but there are places where the limits are simply unreasonable or unrequired.

An example would be a dual carraigeway not far from me. It's over a mile long without an entry or exit and the limit was 40. That was pretty much ignored by everybody and showing an unusual dose of common sense, rather than slap a camera there to cash in, the local authority raised the limit to 60.
Click to expand...

And everyone saved less than 30 secs!
 
I've often wondered when the government will realise that the speed limit changes in some areas cause excess carbon emissions, rather than being able to stay at say 60mph over a 10 mile stretch, there might be 5 or more changes down to 50 or 40 then back up to 60, meaning that re-accelerating back to 60 means more fuel is burnt.... Of course what they would probably do is lower the whole road down to 40 :cuckoo:

As far as traffic control - people might have more respect for the cameras and other speed traps if more time was spent giving other road users who disobey the guides given in the highway code and ignore other laws a ticket or a talking to - middle lane loonies, people who park on double yellows etc etc - both of which can cause or be the trigger to cause an accident.
 
rizla01 said:
I am late for work?

My wife is about to give birth.

I want more time at (destination).
Click to expand...

I don't think any of those 3 examples is valid, the solution there is to leave earlier and not break the law by speeding. If then circumstances dictate that you will be late then be late.

I do thirty thousand miles a year in a vehicle with a speed limiter, one thing I've learned from that is that driving faster does not get you where you are going any faster. it just brings you up on the next obstruction sooner.
 
Suvv said:
And everyone saved less than 30 secs!
Click to expand...

I'm not really sure what you're saying here, or why it required an explanation mark.

Do you think that we should have a lower national speed limit?
 
Splog said:
Interesting! ..... Like it or not? rules / laws are there for a reason and however much we dislike or disagree with them we are not free to not conform to those rules. All of the above answers do not justify speeding as all are down to either poor planning, disorganisation or selfishness :shrug:
Click to expand...

Which is the very reason that I asked you to clarify the meaning of your question.

ALL of those reasons would be VALID to me if circumstances dictated just as a firechief will break speed limits.

I am not saying that I shouldn't have risen earlier in order to prevent the perceived need to speed - but that was not what you asked.

To answer the question that you meant to ask, I don't think there needs to be a reason to speed, just the same as there is no reason to take snuff or smoke. It is a matter of personal choice and if you wish to take the risk then that is up to you.

If it doesn't suit you, then dont.

.
 
fabs said:
Strangely enough, that's a question the examiner asked me on my test.


The answer? When overtaking.
Click to expand...

Interesting..I was told that too, not by anyone qualified however. I was then told or heard that under no circumstances does that apply. The limit is the limit and if you can't overtake within the speed limit, then the traffic is already moving fast enough. I then heard it only applied to motorbikes.

I never actually investigated it any further.:bonk:
 
AndyB1976 said:
Interesting..I was told that too, not by anyone qualified however. I was then told or heard that under no circumstances does that apply. The limit is the limit and if you can't overtake within the speed limit, then the traffic is already moving fast enough. I then heard it only applied to motorbikes.

I never actually investigated it any further.:bonk:
Click to expand...

Apparently, if you are in a 40 zone and the car in front is doing 30 for example, then you may overtake at a speed above the limit (within reason) in order to get back over to the left hand side of the road as quickly as possible. Obviously this only applies to single carriageways.
 
fabs said:
Strangely enough, that's a question the examiner asked me on my test.


The answer? When overtaking.
Click to expand...

Perhaps so! however that would only be a few seconds at most as would be evasive action to avoid an accident!
 
cambsno said:
Speed (takling 10-15mph) over the limit is not a major factor in most accidents. The majority are bad driving and not driving to the conditions/paying attention.
Click to expand...

Are you aware that the braking distance at 40mph is 36 metres, vice 23 metres at 30mph, and that at 35mph you are far more likely to kill someone if you hit them than at 30?

The speed limit is there for a reason, I'm sick of people who think it doesn't apply to them.
 
rizla01 said:
Which is the very reason that I asked you to clarify the meaning of your question.

ALL of those reasons would be VALID to me if circumstances dictated just as a firechief will break speed limits.

I am not saying that I shouldn't have risen earlier in order to prevent the perceived need to speed - but that was not what you asked.

To answer the question that you meant to ask, I don't think there needs to be a reason to speed, just the same as there is no reason to take snuff or smoke. It is a matter of personal choice and if you wish to take the risk then that is up to you.

If it doesn't suit you, then dont.

.
Click to expand...

The question I asked was quite simple .... i.e. justify a reason to break the speed limit ..... not to make excuses for doing so!

There is nothing illegal about taking snuff or smoking :shrug: however speeding is an offence!

But I do agree it is a personal choice to speed or not and you and your victim take the consequences of that action............. unfortunately your victim i.e. the person injured or killed through selfish action by the driver didn't have a choice in the matter :shrug: .......
 
fabs said:
Apparently, if you are in a 40 zone and the car in front is doing 30 for example, then you may overtake at a speed above the limit (within reason) in order to get back over to the left hand side of the road as quickly as possible. Obviously this only applies to single carriageways.
Click to expand...

So what speed can you go up to in order to get past? Lets say you have a very quick car or bike that's capable of getting to 60mph, or 70mph in that timeframe and distance - is that ok?

I would say, that considering you're on the wrong side of the road at the time, it would actually make things worse for you if you were caught.
 
Splog said:
Interesting! ..... Like it or not? rules / laws are there for a reason and however much we dislike or disagree with them we are not free to not conform to those rules.
Click to expand...

Aren't rules are made to be broken? ;)

Anyone is free to not conform to the rules as much as they like... As with most things in life, you balance the action you take against the risk of consequences associated with that action. If you choose to speed, you're taking the risk of the points, fine, or even ban if you're going fast enough - along with the associated risk of potentially "making a bigger mess" if something untoward happens. If you don't want to take that risk, you are just as free to stick to the limit.

IMO it seems to be becoming a problem that people think that they must be driving safely if they stick to the speed limit. I'm sure most drivers on here will have seen situations where travelling at the speed limit would have been absurdly dangerous. Equally, they will have seen situations where to have travelled at 30mph or more over the set speed limit would not have been excessive.
 
Splog said:
Perhaps so! however that would only be a few seconds at most as would be evasive action to avoid an accident!
Click to expand...

Not disagreeing, just passing on what i was told.

OutLore said:
So what speed can you go up to in order to get past? Lets say you have a very quick car or bike that's capable of getting to 60mph, or 70mph in that timeframe and distance - is that ok?

I would say, that considering you're on the wrong side of the road at the time, it would actually make things worse for you if you were caught.
Click to expand...

I would say that was what was meant by "within reason". I would imagine it would be down to discretion and if the vehicle overtaking was doing so a way faster speed than necessary then he/she would be more likely to be pulled over.
 
john_s said:
Aren't rules are made to be broken? ;)

Anyone is free to not conform to the rules as much as they like... As with most things in life, you balance the action you take against the risk of consequences associated with that action. If you choose to speed, you're taking the risk of the points, fine, or even ban if you're going fast enough - along with the associated risk of potentially "making a bigger mess" if something untoward happens. If you don't want to take that risk, you are just as free to stick to the limit.

IMO it seems to be becoming a problem that people think that they must be driving safely if they stick to the speed limit. I'm sure most drivers on here will have seen situations where travelling at the speed limit would have been absurdly dangerous. Equally, they will have seen situations where to have travelled at 30mph or more over the set speed limit would not have been excessive.
Click to expand...

The speed LIMIT is exactly that, not a target as many people treat it. I've no problem with being adventurous in life, but breaking speed limits is different because it can affect more than one person if you screw up.
 
fabs said:
Not disagreeing, just passing on what i was told.
Click to expand...

Never thought you were! I was actually agreeing with you! Simply answering the wider question :thumbs:
 
fabs said:
Apparently, if you are in a 40 zone and the car in front is doing 30 for example, then you may overtake at a speed above the limit (within reason) in order to get back over to the left hand side of the road as quickly as possible. Obviously this only applies to single carriageways.
Click to expand...



And if you passed a GATSO at that time you would get off with that excuse.

Yeah Right.

According to the law you may NOT exceed the speed limit for ANY reason - even common sense.

That is the Police state in which we live, I'm afraid.

Splog said:
The question I asked was quite simple .... i.e. justify a reason to break the speed limit ..... not to make excuses for doing so!

There is nothing illegal about taking snuff or smoking :shrug: however speeding is an offence!

But I do agree it is a personal choice to speed or not and you and your victim take the consequences of that action............. unfortunately your victim i.e. the person injured or killed through selfish action by the driver didn't have a choice in the matter :shrug: .......
Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Your question was
Can anyone give a valid reason for breaking the speed limit
Click to expand...
as I recall, which I did.

You did NOT ask for someone to JUSTIFY it.

I gave reason - not justification.

Don't twist statements to justify your position.
 
Last edited:
rizla01 said:
To answer the question that you meant to ask, I don't think there needs to be a reason to speed, just the same as there is no reason to take snuff or smoke. It is a matter of personal choice and if you wish to take the risk then that is up to you.
Click to expand...

Whilst smoking may be a personal choice it can have a significant affect on others around you if you choose to smoke in a pub for example. In the same way speeding isn't just a choice that affects you, it has an effect on other people too. So just as smoking has been banned in confined public spaces, so too has speeding been regulated on public roads.

It's all well and good harping on about personal choice and freedom etc. but freedom shouldn't extend beyond the point where you inhibit the lives and freedoms of others.

"The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins." -- Oliver Wendell Holmes
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top