Got done for speeding

[soze]

And that reason is that the governement is happily giving out driving licences to people that don't know what speed they can drive at safely, or don't care about driving safely.
If that wasn't the case they wouldn't be needed.

I would reply to everything else but this tells me everything i need to know. you are most probably not Advanced trained. Yet somehow think you are a good enough driver to say how fast you should be going when and where. Unless you are an Advanced driver which i doubt as you would not make that satement you do not know what the right safe speed is. As experts are the people who review and decide speed limits it is not someone who thinks i want to slow people down just for laughs.

 

[Golena]

Yet somehow think you are a good enough driver to say how fast you should be going when and where. Unless you are an Advanced driver which i doubt as you would not make that satement you do not know what the right safe speed is.

If that was the case I shouldn't of been given a driving licence.
If your unable to tell the speed you should be driving to be safe you shouldn't be behind a wheel. My biggest gripe in the world is people that argue that because they are driving under the speed limit they are going at a speed that is safe.
I can point to plenty of roads with deregulated speed limits that it's legal to drive along at 60 that I wouldn't dare do more than 30 on. It's not the little sign by the side of the road that tells me what's safe (because 60 clearly isn't), it's the 10 years i've spent driving that tells me at what speed I can go and not endanger myself and others lives.

Just because I enter a built up area and the speed limit changes to 30 doesn't mean that I suddenly lose that ability, in the same way that driving over 30 isn't always instantly dangerous, driving at 30 isn't always instantly safe. The speed limits are there because some people seem to be unable to realise that speeds are unsafe by themselves so the law needs a line at which they can actually pull people over. The current nanny state mentality means that the line is normally drawn at a speed that's lower than often necessary, and that's fine if it saves lives.

Just because I don't think speed camera's are a good way of enforcing dangerous driving (and it's people driving dangerously not just too fast that's the actual reason people get killed) doesn't mean I think it's right to say that all drivers should be able to tear about at 100 freely infront of a school.

 

[Golena]

Quick example:

There's a nice wide road with plenty of visibility on both sides and a 40 mph speed limit. The road gets to a school and the speed limit drops to 30, then back up to 40 at the other side.

Now at 8:30 in the morning when there's cars parked on both sides of the road and children running out from between them doing more than about 20 through that section would be endangering lives. Drive past the same section of road at 2 in the morning and you could probably do 35 and not really endanger anyone. The same road 300 meters in either direction with the same visibility has been judged by your expect to be safe up to 40mph.

The current government would much rather slap the guy going past at 35 at 2 in the morning with a nice big juicy fine than do anything about the idiot charging through at 30 obliviously at 8:35 in the morning.

Edit: In fact they would probably charge the person doing 42 in the 40 zone at 2 in the morning, rather than the person who went through the entire section at 40 at 8:35 since putting camera's in front of schools isn't particularly cost effective as they catch less people.

 

[Infanity]

Having no speed limit on the outer lane of a motorway isn't idiotic. Maybe it's worth pointing out that the speed limit of 70 was created at a time when cars didn't have nearly the same stopping ability or safety measures that todays cars have. Driving at 100 now is probably actually much like driving at 70 was when the speed limit was put there.

What is idiotic is giving people that can't recognise that the speed they are doing in the outside lane is wrong, not because some sign tells them it is but because it's actually dangerous, a licence in the first place!
If you need a sign at the side of the road to tell you what is a safe speed to travel at for that piece of tarmac, then you should of quite conclusively failed your test!

Go and check your breaking times again mate, If your doing 100mph and hit someone, Check the damage.

 

[Infanity]

If that was the case I shouldn't of been given a driving licence.If your unable to tell the speed you should be driving to be safe you shouldn't be behind a wheel. My biggest gripe in the world is people that argue that because they are driving under the speed limit they are going at a speed that is safe.
I can point to plenty of roads with deregulated speed limits that it's legal to drive along at 60 that I wouldn't dare do more than 30 on. It's not the little sign by the side of the road that tells me what's safe (because 60 clearly isn't), it's the 10 years i've spent driving that tells me at what speed I can go and not endanger myself and others lives.

Just because I enter a built up area and the speed limit changes to 30 doesn't mean that I suddenly lose that ability, in the same way that driving over 30 isn't always instantly dangerous, driving at 30 isn't always instantly safe. The speed limits are there because some people seem to be unable to realise that speeds are unsafe by themselves so the law needs a line at which they can actually pull people over. The current nanny state mentality means that the line is normally drawn at a speed that's lower than often necessary, and that's fine if it saves lives.

Just because I don't think speed camera's are a good way of enforcing dangerous driving (and it's people driving dangerously not just too fast that's the actual reason people get killed) doesn't mean I think it's right to say that all drivers should be able to tear about at 100 freely infront of a school.

The way you drive on your test and the way you drive after is DIFFERENT and you DEFINATELY start learning to drive when you pass, No one sitting in with you to stop you doing your daft speeds.

 

[Lamp]

You lads have to try a day's driving in greece. It's like a video game but you only get one go

LOL. Reminds me of something I heard. Egypt I think. Apparently if you can drive a car in a straight line for 100m they give you your licence. LOL

 

[Golena]

Go and check your breaking times again mate, If your doing 100mph and hit someone, Check the damage.

Try breaking from 70 to zero in your average car from 1980.
Now try breaking from 100 to zero in the latest porche.
My guess is the porche is probably going to stop first, although I could be wrong here of course since I haven't actually done it.

I'd also imagine that if you hit someone in another modern car at 100 you'd be more likely to survive than you would of you were both in cars built in 1980 and both travelling at 70.


What always amuses me on here is that you say travelling at 100 isn't dangerous, and everyone instantly assumes that means everytime you get on a motorway you must be the person doing 120 down the hard shoulder.

 

[Golena]

The way you drive on your test and the way you drive after is DIFFERENT and you DEFINATELY start learning to drive when you pass, No one sitting in with you to stop you doing your daft speeds.

That's very much my point tho. The entire driving test is completely meaningless since 90% of people drive in a completely different manner the second they leave the test center. If the driving test was actually meaningful instead of a contrived set of hoops you jump through then you'd get tested on the way you were actually planning on driving, and those driving in a silly manner wouldn't pass.

You'll notice that I said if I didn't know what a safe speed was I shouldn't of been given a driving licence. That doesn't in any way mean that the current system wouldn't fork one out to me without asking twice.

 

[Golena]

LOL. Reminds me of something I heard. Egypt I think. Apparently if you can drive a car in a straight line for 100m they give you your licence. LOL

In China you get a driving licence after an hour or so in the latest version of grand turismo. You don't actually at any point have to get behind the wheel of an actual car, and god does it show!

 

[Chronictank]

Thats a myth not the whole of Germany is with out limits.

It's not a myth, there are parts of the autobahn where there are no speed limits, this however doesnt extent to the entire motorway which i didnt mention as it's common knowledge

And why not to allow any speed. A car in the middle lane doing 70 gets a tyre blow out and sways into the out side lane. Now you get some one doing 140 who has no chance to react plows into the other car at twice the speed and you end up with a big pile up.

The middle and outer lanes technically speaking are suppose to be for overtaking, despite that I highly doubt the average speed would be 140 mph.
But even so drivers who are driving legally should be giving adequate breaking distance even now, so your pile up theory is pretty inaccurate as if the driver behind is doing things by the book they should be able to stop, the ones who wont are the same ones who would pile into the back of someone at 70

Now you give some reasons why you need to be doing 100+ instead of 70 please. I will get there quicker and because i can are bull shit btw

Firstly on an empty road it is not "bullshit" as you put it, most traffic congestion is caused by people breaking hard because they didnt leave sufficient space between themselves and the car in front, concatinated effect being traffic jams.
Which would happen anyway regardless of speed limit, so your point is mute, you will get there faster if the speed limit was higher if everyone followed the rules, than the current limits if everyone followed the rules.

Secondly the current limits were set decades ago, they were in place because they were more dangerous, now the cars are more safe, the roads are better surfaces and the roads are better designed.

I should really elaborate, i dont condone a whole motorway having no speed limit i am suggesting like on autobahns there be stretches of low congestion zones where the speed be increased, where a increased speed limit WILL reduce journey times.
Said stretches can also be better protected, e.g. higher fences, or even a seperate "fast lane" as they are dedicated for the purpose.

 

[Infanity]

Try breaking from 70 to zero in your average car from 1980.
Now try breaking from 100 to zero in the latest porche.
My guess is the porche is probably going to stop first, although I could be wrong here of course since I haven't actually done it.

I'd also imagine that if you hit someone in another modern car at 100 you'd be more likely to survive than you would of you were both in cars built in 1980 and both travelling at 70.


What always amuses me on here is that you say travelling at 100 isn't dangerous, and everyone instantly assumes that means everytime you get on a motorway you must be the person doing 120 down the hard shoulder.

If you get hit at 100mph your fucked. Simple.

Watch this vid about old cars and new cars. Slow speed i agree totally about old and new safety, Try high speeds. YouTube - smart car crash
[youtubevid]ju6t-yyoU8s[/youtubevid]


"No matter what you drive, rapidly decelerating from higher speeds is something your organs can not cope with..."

now if the chances are small at 70mph, Why endanger someones life even more doing 100+?

 

[Golena]

If you get hit at 100mph your fucked. Simple.

"No matter what you drive, rapidly decelerating from higher speeds is something your organs can not cope with..."

I rest my case

What this video basically says is that if you crash at 70, your fucked.

I don't see people in this thread screaming about the stupidity of doing 70 on a motorway despite the fact that as you've just proved, if you crash your probably going to die. Now if I said I was driving at 80 or 90 people would no doubt leap in and scream that I was being stupid, despite the fact that in an accident I was dead either way.
The fact that I might of been leaving 3 times the gap to the car in front so therefore would of actually been less likely to of had an accident is irrelevant. The only important thing is how fast I was going.

Slowing people down to 70 only seems to reduce the distance they drive to the car in front. It's not reducing the chances of an accident, it's just moving the accident from one fatal speed to a slightly slower fatal speed.

 

[Golena]

now if the chances are small at 70mph, Why endanger someones life even more doing 100+?

The chances are smaller at 50mph, so why enanger someone's life by doing 70?

The answer is simple, because you obviously consider 70mph to be safe. I can apply exactly the same reasoning between 70 and 100.

Everytime you increase the speed there's a greater chance of an injury, yet people still don't want all speed limits nationally to be reduced to 20mph.

Removing speed limits isn't about saying that everyone can drive at 150mph without issue. It's saying that drivers should have the responsibility to determine what a safe speed is, and people abusing that and driving at 150 stupidly should still be punished, not because they are doing 150, but because they are doing it 15 meters behind another car in the rain.

 

[Infanity]

The chances are smaller at 50mph, so why enanger someone's life by doing 70?

The answer is simple, because you obviously consider 70mph to be safe. I can apply exactly the same reasoning between 70 and 100.

Everytime you increase the speed there's a greater chance of an injury, yet people still don't want all speed limits nationally to be reduced to 20mph.

Removing speed limits isn't about saying that everyone can drive at 150mph without issue. It's saying that drivers should have the responsibility to determine what a safe speed is, and people abusing that and driving at 150 stupidly should still be punished, not because they are doing 150, but because they are doing it 15 meters behind another car in the rain.

You find 100mph safe. Your tyre blows, you hit some innocent doing 55.

I honestly hope you experience a crash and you realise how stupid you are.

 

[Hawkwind]

You lads have to try a day's driving in greece. It's like a video game but you only get one go

Apart from downtown Athens Greece is a piece of piss. Worst countries to drive in are China, Egypt, Saudi, then probably Oman/UAE.

btw Police guide for speeding in UK is 10% +3. That's from a mate who is a senior traffic cop in Hampshire. Most camera's are set to those limits. So to set off a 30 mph camera you must be doing in excess of 36 mph.

 

[soze]

Chronictank I was saying not all of germany dose not have a limit as in even Germany do not trust people to make up there own mind all the time.

alot of congestion is because of bottle necks I have read and seen if our cars were computer controlled you would never hit a traffic jam on a motorway. If everyone did a constant 70 there would be no problem. Its twichy driver that causes accidents by keep tappin breaks and cause people behind them to break untill you end up creeping along. Thats why you can sit in a traffic jam on the m25 and suddly start doing 70 again with out seeing why you slowed down.

And golena i hate the fact you have a driving licence and i just hope that when you wipe out from being over confident you do not take an inicent family out with you when you go round a blind corner at 70 because you think its safe.

 

[Bahumat]

Pip's gonna get life for his crimes haha

 

[Chronictank]

Chronictank I was saying not all of germany dose not have a limit as in even Germany do not trust people to make up there own mind all the time.

alot of congestion is because of bottle necks I have read and seen if our cars were computer controlled you would never hit a traffic jam on a motorway. If everyone did a constant 70 there would be no problem. Its twichy driver that causes accidents by keep tappin breaks and cause people behind them to break untill you end up creeping along. Thats why you can sit in a traffic jam on the m25 and suddly start doing 70 again with out seeing why you slowed down.

Exactly, however this can be very easily overcome with traffic calming (e.g. high speed road, leads to a slower road, leads to a slower road etc etc..) like they do when there is an accident or a lane closure.
I am not saying there should be no limits on all motorways as in heavily conjested/busy zones its not practical just certain sections where there is a low volume of traffic.

 

[Sparx]

this thread makes me laugh

I would put a months wages on it that every single person here on this thread screaming about going above 70 on the motorway has done it at one time or another cause they have judged the situation and deemed it fine to do so, or have crept up. i myself tend to do around 80 on the motorway because i know its fine to do so. I dont usually go on the motorways during peak btw more like early mornings going from brum back to london etc. The roads are totally empty, you may see 1 car every 10 mins

I did get cocky once and go 120. Not proud of it and thank god i never got caught or had an accident, but i felt in total control the whole time. I would like to say i wouldnt do it again tho

 

[Heta]

I drive too fast all the time

90=110
110=130

and yes, km/h not miles/faggotarse or what unit you use for time there

specially if going longer distances, sucks now with speed cameras all along the roads having to break each time you see one

 

[Golena]

You find 100mph safe. Your tyre blows, you hit some innocent doing 55.

I honestly hope you experience a crash and you realise how stupid you are.

And golena i hate the fact you have a driving licence and i just hope that when you wipe out from being over confident you do not take an inicent family out with you when you go round a blind corner at 70 because you think its safe.

Sorry you've obviously not read a single thing i've written.
I currently drive a landrover, I doubt I could get to 100 even if I wanted to and in all my 10+ years of driving i've never once gone at 100mph or over once.

Soze, I find the fact that you have a driving licence utterly appauling if you think you can drive in 3rd gear at 3000revs on any incline of road and be doing 30mph in your car. I find it even more appauling that you need a sign at the side of the road to tell you to do 30mph here in order to be safe. You've obviously not even the slightest idea how to drive safely because your unable to tell what speed your going at and what speed is safe for a certain section of road.

If they took away every speed limit the speed at which it was SAFE to travel at wouldn't alter. Drivers should be driving at a safe speed regardless of what the speed limit is.
Why would anything i've written here imply that I would drive round a blind corner at 70. It's not a safe speed. The reason I wouldn't do it is because it's not a SAFE speed, not because some sign says 60mph before it. You on the other hand seem to be implying that the sign is needed because otherwise people wouldn't know how fast to drive round a corner that is safer at no faster than 30 because no-one with a licence knows what a safe speed is. In fact you'd see nothing wrong with someone hurtling round it at 60 because that's what the sign said you could do.

Utter utter complete stupidity, sorry.

 

[Sparx]

Only thing i disagree about that is if you are somewhere you dont know then you may not know the road as much and yes you should drive slower but that limit is a good reading to help you know what kind of road it is

 

[Golena]

Only thing i disagree about that is if you are somewhere you dont know then you may not know the road as much and yes you should drive slower but that limit is a good reading to help you know what kind of road it is

I can accept that one. Finally someone with a good point.

I'm also not saying that speed limits are some kind of mass evil thing that I hate. What I hate is the fact that I can if I wanted charge out of a junction in an unsafe gap, almost mow down an old lady on an pedestrian crossing then drive on the tail of the car infront on an icy road in the rain. And the person who gets the fine will be the person who drove responsibly but accidentally drifted up to 32 on a nice clear section of road when it started doing downhill. And people think that this is a sensible way of spending money to make our roads safer.

 

[Mephz]

Sorry you've obviously not read a single thing i've written.
I currently drive a landrover, I doubt I could get to 100 even if I wanted to and in all my 10+ years of driving i've never once gone at 100mph or over once.

Soze, I find the fact that you have a driving licence utterly appauling if you think you can drive in 3rd gear at 3000revs on any incline of road and be doing 30mph in your car. I find it even more appauling that you need a sign at the side of the road to tell you to do 30mph here in order to be safe. You've obviously not even the slightest idea how to drive safely because your unable to tell what speed your going at and what speed is safe for a certain section of road.

If they took away every speed limit the speed at which it was SAFE to travel at wouldn't alter. Drivers should be driving at a safe speed regardless of what the speed limit is.
Why would anything i've written here imply that I would drive round a blind corner at 70. It's not a safe speed. The reason I wouldn't do it is because it's not a SAFE speed, not because some sign says 60mph before it. You on the other hand seem to be implying that the sign is needed because otherwise people wouldn't know how fast to drive round a corner that is safer at no faster than 30 because no-one with a licence knows what a safe speed is. In fact you'd see nothing wrong with someone hurtling round it at 60 because that's what the sign said you could do.

Utter utter complete stupidity, sorry.

I have been 150mph as a passenger on the A30, mid afternoon and loved every minute of it, oh teh shame.

Going over 100mph a couple times wont hurt anyone on a dual carriage way unless the drivers are retarded and can’t use a mirror, you only live once Dorice.

 

[Golena]

I have been 150mph as a passenger on the A30, mid afternoon and loved every minute of it, oh teh shame.

Going over 100mph a couple times wont hurt anyone on a dual carriage way unless the drivers are retarded and can’t use a mirror, you only live once Dorice.

I've done enough stupid stuff in a car already to know that i've now lived once.

When driving you should assume that every driver is retarded and can't use a mirror, since they are under the speed limit they couldn't possibly be doing anything dangerous, right Soze?

 

[Sparx]

When driving you should assume that every driver is retarded and can't use a mirror

amen to that, sad thing is most of em are, especially in london.

 

[Golena]

And people who claim to have been driving who say they need to stare at there speedos i always want to send for driving lessons my Dad can and I can both drive my car and know that at 3000 revs in 3rd gear we are doing 30 and my car at 3000revs sounds different to at 4500 40 so i do not need to stare at my speedo to know im not breaking the speed limit.

So I did a quick test on my way back from the supermarket just now.

I was driving along quite happily at 30mph with my rev indicator on 1500 revs.
I then got to a hill and had to accelerate to 2000 revs in order to keep at a speed of about 28-29mph. The engine at this point sounded much more noisy than moments before despite my slower speed.

Upon reaching the crest of the hill my 2000 revs quickly accelerated me to about 35mph, and dropping my revs back down to 1500 only reduced my speed to about 32-33mph.

Now short of staring at the speedo, how exactly am I supposed to tell what speed i'm doing to within 10%? If you saying the average driver can tell the difference by looking out the window between 29 and 32mph then i'm really wondering why they bother fitting electric spedometers to cars that arn't any more accurate than that.