Safe Speed Forums

This is Tourist Tony's idea of a joke

Funny, I thought it wsa Yusufwhatshisface

And how do they know how much they have to brake?

While they’re watching the speedo they’re not watching the road ahead or where they’re going.

I do drive, and I know that I can watch my speed and the road

One of the main arguments here is that motorists who speed have better powers of observation and judgement than those who don't. If I don't accept this argument then I'm not going to accept any conclusions that follow from it. I do drive, and I know that I can watch my speed and the road, and even check my rear view mirror from time to time.

No, that's the wrong way round. What you said was effectively; "You speed therefore your observation and judgement are better"

I don't think anyone here has ever said that.

What we're saying is that good judgement and observation are crucial skills. The ability to stay at or below an arbitrary number is not. Current enforcement shifts the emphesis from the crucial skills to the unimportant ones. If good judgement and observation are well honed and relied upon, the speed limit is largly irrelevent as the motorist will always automatically default to the safe speed for the conditions (which in an urban setting is just as likely to be well BELOW the limit as at, or above it).

I'll bet you don't know your speed 100% of the time though which is what automated enforcement is asking you to do.

How often do you check your speed when riding?

Maintaining a speed within this margin (and remember you're allowed to go below 40 as well) is really quite easy, with practice.

most of the time, yes but it's still possible to have the odd blip here or there especially on a downhill stretch.


I'm still interested to know how often you check your speed while riding your bike - and knowing the answer already perhaps you can instead tell us how you can manage to ride safely without knowing your speed.

These theories have been proposed, and then used as the basis for further argument:- If you're concentrating on keeping to the speed limit you aren't concentrating on the road;
If you abdicate responsibility for selecting your own speed and simply do as you're told, then you won't be thinking about whether a different speed (faster or slower) would be more appropriate.

I don't have a speedo on my bike. I had one once, so I know what 30mph feels like and I don't ride that fast now; I'm probably in the 16-20 region most of the time. I don't "cycle furiously" which is what cyclists can get done for instead of speeding.

If you abdicate responsibility for selecting your own speed and simply do as you're told, then you won't be thinking about whether a different speed (faster or slower) would be more appropriate.

Sorry, I'm missing this point, are you saying that I'd be satisfied to see a higher casualty rate because it would prove my argument; or that a higher casualty rate is an inevitable consequence of inflexible speed limits enforced by unthinking machines?

I've read this a few times and can't quite get my head round it. Are you saying that drivers should just drive at a speed as dictated by the limit, rather than choose their own speed?

I don't have a speedo on my bike. I had one once, so I know what 30mph feels like and I don't ride that fast now; I'm probably in the 16-20 region most of the time. I don't "cycle furiously" which is what cyclists can get done for instead of speeding.

I was using hyperbole, but it's clear from the context what point I was making.

The truth is that 'speeding' or 'exceeding a speed limit' is not, EVER, IN
ITSELF dangerous. There is no magic number that marks the difference between
safe and dangerous. Neither is it a simple matter of suggesting that 'we must
draw a line somewhere', because the safety of a speed varies wildly with
circumstances. In fact if the speed limit:

* is right for a Porsche, it's wrong for a van
* is right on the straight, it's wrong on the bend
* is right in the dry, it's wrong in the wet
* is right when it's quiet, it's wrong when it's busy
* is right for a novice, it's wrong for an experienced driver
* is right during the day, it's wrong during the night
* is right when it's clear, it's wrong when it's foggy
* is right when the road is wide, it's wrong when the road is narrow
* is right when the pavements are deserted, it's wrong when there are
pedestrians about
* and so on, endlessly

Drivers naturally - and accurately - take account of these factors. Road safety
depends on them doing so. The speed limit is blunt and imprecise, but in the
days of discretionary enforcement by Police officers served us well. These
days, with camera enforcement, the speed limit is gradually becoming a target
and gradually replacing the previous safe behaviour.

In fact the speed limit is just a PROXY for the desired behaviour. The core
problem is that speed cameras have promoted the proxy beyond the status of the
desired behaviour.

A certain degree of pragmatism here. If the speed limits were set to 30 or below on all roads except motorways, journeys would take too long, so higher speeds are permited on roads where there are considered to be fewer hazards. 60mph roads don't have pavements, houses and shops as a rule.

Ohmigiddyaunt

This is a REAL pissing contest isn't it?

In fact, its a six storey air-conditioned pissing contest, carpeted foyer, adult TV, lifts playing Pink Floyd, 24 hour porterage, free bar, all-you-can-eat restaurant and a 40 foot neon sign saying "THIS IS A PISSING CONTEST" (Black Adder original acknowledged).

Sheeesh

One of the main arguments here is that motorists who speed have better powers of observation and judgement than those who don't. If I don't accept this argument then I'm not going to accept any conclusions that follow from it. I do drive, and I know that I can watch my speed and the road, and even check my rear view mirror from time to time.