gym_rat Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 I knew we'd agree on something. I've never found it difficult either. but then because you dont agree with breaking the law you can`t come over all sanctimonious on an internet forum, or in the case of penistone999 you would have to actually think of something funny and say it out loud to friends. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alchresearch Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 For example, I read the report about the A57. It said that there was no reason or basis for lowering the speed limit. The limit has in fact been 60 mph for longer than you or I have been alive. I think that gives me a pretty strong claim to argue that 50 is lower than it should be. Perhaps it has something to do with the number of bikers who crash on there, and the rise in popularity of biking? Its the same on the Cat and Fiddle, another similar road which is popular with bikers and has has the same speed reductions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted December 31, 2012 Share Posted December 31, 2012 The section to the Sheffield boundary did not have an above average number of crashes of any type. The section in Derbyshire could well have had that logic applied (it's stupid obviously, the bikers were speeding, so why would altering the limit alter their behaviour and reduce the number of crashes of people who ignore the limit). ---------- Post added 31-12-2012 at 10:45 ---------- Maybe the difference is that some will hold their hands up when they are caught speeding and admit that they were in the wrong, and others will bleat about how the speed limit was wrong, and that the only reason that they were fined was to raise revenue? Gym_rat appears to be claiming that they never break the law, not that they would call it a fair cop if caught. ---------- Post added 31-12-2012 at 10:47 ---------- of course I drive, what a silly question you and yours always struggle with this point - speeding is not "going over the speed limit" as understood and allowed for in the highway code (IIRC) for example passing a hazard There is no allowance in the highway code or the law for breaking the speed limit. Breaking the speed limit is exactly what speeding is. it is consistently driving at a speed higher than the posted limit This is speeding consistently. - you admit to it several times every time the topic comes up. usually waffling on about how you are a safer driver on the A57 than somone not speeding. Quote please. it doesn`t matter if I trust political bodies or not, a law has been passed and you deliberately break it because you know better, so again, can you share your qualifications to decide a speed limit is incorrect? I already explained how I might make such a judgement. What do you need, a diagram? I dont speed neither do I claim to be perfect. I think you probably lie. ---------- Post added 31-12-2012 at 10:48 ---------- If only that were true...:-( In thirty odd years of driving I've never found it difficult to keep the speed on the circle thingy in front of me lower than the circle thingy's on the side of the road. Why others seem to apparently have so much trouble is beyond me... You never find that the posted limit appears to be unreasonably low? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted December 31, 2012 Share Posted December 31, 2012 Sometimes yes. I don't see that as a reason for breaking it however. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sid Umpley Posted December 31, 2012 Share Posted December 31, 2012 the problem is seeing the limit signs then trying to drive at that speed. doing that means your very likely to wander higher. those signs are not advisory driving speeds, they are the max. so how about try to drive 5 below that sign limit and then when you drift higher you wont be speeding. not rocket science really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DT Ralge Posted December 31, 2012 Share Posted December 31, 2012 the problem is seeing the limit signs then trying to drive at that speed. doing that means your very likely to wander higher. those signs are not advisory driving speeds, they are the max. so how about try to drive 5 below that sign limit and then when you drift higher you wont be speeding. not rocket science really. How about trying to drive at the limit, instead, where appropriate and calibrate your understanding of your road speed by the noise coming from the engine (try 3rd gear in a 30 zone) coupled with an occasional check of the needle? "Wandering" above the limit is harder in 3rd than in 4th. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted December 31, 2012 Share Posted December 31, 2012 Sometimes yes. I don't see that as a reason for breaking it however. It's definitely a reason to object to it though, and to object to it's rigorous enforcement on 'safety' grounds. ---------- Post added 31-12-2012 at 13:32 ---------- How about trying to drive at the limit, instead, where appropriate and calibrate your understanding of your road speed by the noise coming from the engine (try 3rd gear in a 30 zone) coupled with an occasional check of the needle? "Wandering" above the limit is harder in 3rd than in 4th. How so? My car will do 100mph in 3rd. I could wander above a 30 limit in any gear out of 6 (doubt it will do 30+ in reverse). I find that if I'm not in traffic then the cruise control and 6th gear makes it unlikely that I'll wander above 30, or indeed dip below it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted December 31, 2012 Share Posted December 31, 2012 It's definitely a reason to object to it though, and to object to it's rigorous enforcement on 'safety' grounds Is it? Just because I think sometimes it's too slow doesnt mean that it's set incorrectly. IF they made the Parkway 20mph along the entire length I'd complain sure, but a long 40mph section that stops tail end crashes at the city end is perfectly reasonable, even though for much of the time it's not strictly required. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frededwards Posted December 31, 2012 Share Posted December 31, 2012 Why not just raise the standard of driving so that only people capable of making intelligent, objective, real-time decisions as to the appropriate speed at any particular time are allowed to drive? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted December 31, 2012 Share Posted December 31, 2012 Is it? Just because I think sometimes it's too slow doesnt mean that it's set incorrectly. If a new limit is not incorrect, then the old limit must have been incorrect (they can't both be right). And if the study made by the council says that there is no reason to change the limit, then it would appear that the old limit was not incorrect... So it's pretty obvious that the new one is. IF they made the Parkway 20mph along the entire length I'd complain sure, but a long 40mph section that stops tail end crashes at the city end is perfectly reasonable, even though for much of the time it's not strictly required. I agree, and I observe the 40 limit. I didn't say that all limits were incorrect, just that they can be and that sometimes this is obvious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.