SnailyBoy Posted August 16, 2010 Share Posted August 16, 2010 ....and neither is it prohibited by the HC as I'm sure you understand now. And where is the "you must not....." there isn't one... I have found an interesting 'you must not' for Motorways as you seem a little bound by them 261 You MUST NOT exceed 70 mph (112 km/h), or the maximum speed limit permitted for your vehicle (see Rule 124). If a lower speed limit is in force, either permanently or temporarily, at road works for example, you MUST NOT exceed the lower limit. On some motorways, mandatory motorway signals (which display the speed within a red ring) are used to vary the maximum speed limit to improve traffic flow. You MUST NOT exceed this speed limit. [Law RTRA sects 17, 86, 89 & sch 6] Thanks..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greybeard Posted August 16, 2010 Share Posted August 16, 2010 So when they will invent one to stop drunks and druggies driving. When the cameras are good enough to spot unusual pupil dilation ? Obviously you can't prevent people from driving under the influence - you just make the penalties an effective deterrent - the same thing applies to speeding and driving dangerously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted August 16, 2010 Share Posted August 16, 2010 I have found an interesting 'you must not' for Motorways as you seem a little bound by them 261 You MUST NOT exceed 70 mph (112 km/h), or the maximum speed limit permitted for your vehicle (see Rule 124). If a lower speed limit is in force, either permanently or temporarily, at road works for example, you MUST NOT exceed the lower limit. On some motorways, mandatory motorway signals (which display the speed within a red ring) are used to vary the maximum speed limit to improve traffic flow. You MUST NOT exceed this speed limit. [Law RTRA sects 17, 86, 89 & sch 6] Thanks..... And? What does that have to do with moving over......? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnailyBoy Posted August 16, 2010 Share Posted August 16, 2010 And? What does that have to do with moving over......? Nothing....Just highlighting a 'Must not' in the Highway Code, it's on topic. As you pointed out.....there isn't a 'you must not move over to lane 2 to assist traffic merging with the motorway' You do it because you're not told you 'Must not' do it. You make a decision that merging traffic needs a helping hand, which is fair enough. Saying that though the Highway Code is very particular about it's 'Must Not', they tend to be linked to actual laws. Sorry for highlighting the obvious. I'm sure you follow the particular 'Must not exceed 70mph' example i gave earlier, no grey area there. Would be hypocritical if not....surely? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DT Ralge Posted August 16, 2010 Share Posted August 16, 2010 And so someone does argue for lower speed limits, so there was no straw man at all. It's a bit like trying to argue with the wind, one minute it's not all about speed, the next you're suggesting that maybe speed limits should be universally lower in order to help road safety. I am NOT argunig that at all - I really don't get where you got that impression. You suggested that our existing speedl limits were archangel old, implying that they should be raised. I was merely pointing out that it ain't going to happen and giving logical reasons why not. To re-iterate, we aren't the only ones who have 30 (50 kph) limits etc. - road safety is a pan-European business these days. Incidents, casualties and deaths is simply a numbers and probability game, so at the macro level, the authorities are bothered about prevailing road speeds - so if you increase limits across the board, prevailing road speeds will rise. It should be obvious to anyone who has no axe to grind about the issue that in the bag of mashings of real-life outcomes (of random crash events that may not have been caused by speed alone) after raising limits the outcomes will be poorer (they are hardly likely to be better). Boring, but simple laws of maths and physics apply. You remind me of a "mate" of mine years back that I left behind long ago - he simply argues for argument's sake, a bit like your "arguing with the wind." Remind me not to bother again to present the facts in a logical way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted August 16, 2010 Share Posted August 16, 2010 I don't think 30 limits need revising at all, they seem fine to me. You don't see many speed cameras in 30 zones though. I am puzzled though how this isn't you making a case for lowering speed limits, or at least making the suggestion that maybe they should be lowered. Maybe the admittedly arbitrary limits set all those years ago were set too high? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DT Ralge Posted August 16, 2010 Share Posted August 16, 2010 "Maybe the limits set way back were set too high for the vehicles, roads, drivers of the day" was how I meant it to read. BTW it was only a thought. I don't hold this to be the absolute truth, just my way of challenging the normal cliched argument about limits, speed, modern cars .... Its a thought founded on a suspicion that some of the poor outcomes on our roads arise from drivers overrating their own abilities and/or the performance of the vehicle underneath them. I spend my professional life encouraging drivers to build margins for error (I stress NOT just in speed). Modern cars are undoubtedly safer, better engineered than they were. The new technologies give us greater safety margins - my message: "fantastic, take the greater safety margins, but it's still you, the fallible flesh and blood, at the wheel and it's still too easy to push your luck and squander the increased safety margins" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted August 17, 2010 Share Posted August 17, 2010 Improved training for all would probably go a long way to helping, but it's not as easy or as profitable as sticking up speed cameras. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted August 17, 2010 Share Posted August 17, 2010 Nothing....Just highlighting a 'Must not' in the Highway Code, it's on topic. As you pointed out.....there isn't a 'you must not move over to lane 2 to assist traffic merging with the motorway' You do it because you're not told you 'Must not' do it. You make a decision that merging traffic needs a helping hand, which is fair enough. Saying that though the Highway Code is very particular about it's 'Must Not', they tend to be linked to actual laws. Sorry for highlighting the obvious. I'm sure you follow the particular 'Must not exceed 70mph' example i gave earlier, no grey area there. Would be hypocritical if not....surely? Explain the hypocrisy.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnailyBoy Posted August 17, 2010 Share Posted August 17, 2010 Explain the hypocrisy.... In this particular example it all depends on whether you exceed 70mph on a motorway, despite the Highway Code saying you Must Not do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.