Safe Speed Forums

Under what circumstances exactly does exceeding a speed limit, rather than travelling too fast for the conditions, get listed as a possible contributory factor for an accident?

If the driver was travelling too fast for the conditions, and exceeding the speed limit, do both factors get listed, or just one? Shouldn't it just be the former? If the latter is listed, doesn't that mean that the more unreasonably low a speed limit, the more chance there is of speeding being listed as a cause (when the cause was actually travelling too fast and the driver just happened to be exceeding the arbitrary limit at the time)?

Surely to be strictly accurate, exceeding the speed limit should only be listed when the driver was over the speed limit, and the accident could have been avoided if (and only if) the driver was within the speed limit. But that strikes me as being an incredibly unlikely set of circumstances, much less than 5% likely. Maybe, since we're talking about possible contributory factors, they only have to calculate that the speed above which the driver would have crashed was within (say) 20% of the limit for speeding to be listed.

But putting aside guessing for a moment and looking at what actually happens, the number of accidents where going at the speed limit + 1mph would have resulted in an accident, but going at the speed limit wouldn't have resulted in one, must be incredibly small. And if you work to several decimal places, say 30.000000mph = no accident but 30.000001mph = accident, then the number of accidents like that must be effectively zero. In other words, the number of accidents caused by speeding per se is ridiculously small, probably zero, and it would have been very hard for them to have got current policy as wrong as they have done.

Perhaps someone could let me know what's what. If I haven't made myself clear then let me know and I'll try again....

_________________
Paul Smith: a legend.

"The freedom provided by the motor vehicle is not universally applauded, however: there are those who resent the loss of state control over individual choice that the car represents. Such people rarely admit their prejudices openly; instead, they make false or exaggerated claims about the adverse effects of road transport in order to justify calls for higher taxation or restrictions on mobility." (Conservative Way Forward: Stop The War Against Drivers)

Driving too fast for the conditions could be construed as a simple error - misreading the conditions, while exceeding the legal speed limit implies that the driver knew he was driving recklessly.

That said, it depends on the limit being set for a good reason and not just set arbitrarily by some local council for political reasons, or sheer incompetence.

I would guess that in court you would be penalised for illegal speed, while excess speed might actually be judged on the circumstances - in an ideal world!

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!

The trouble is that the state - in its infinite wisdom, has decided on the speed limit. This, they keep telling us, is the MAXIMUM safe speed for that stretch of road under ideal conditions. They also keep telling us that a "safe" speed may well be less than the limit on many occasions.

All that doesn't really lend itself to having any official of the State reach any conclusion other than anyone exceeding the speed limit MUST also (by definition) have been driving too fast for the conditions.

As you quite rightly say, any conclusion that it was otherwose, would suggest that the limit was not high enough - and that's out of line with government thinking, it would appear!

In fact, if anything, it seems to be fuelling the current programme of speed limit reductions - "oh dear, there's been another accident, must be the speed limit that needs lowering".

I think it's a big problem with governments in general where they keep pushing an incorrect message for so long that they start to believe their own bullsh1t and to do anything else would result in huge loss of face!

If the speed limit IS the maximum safe limit, then the lower the limit, the more critical the margin of error would become.
If for instance the limit in a car park is 10 mph, then to travel at a lower speed than the MAXIMUM would involve ever finer increments of speed!

I would say that a speed limit would imply that an average speed resulting in that posted was the safest, not the absolute maximum.

My example would be the A592 between Bowness and Newby Bridge, recently reduced from 60 to 50 mph. While an average of 60 would be dangerous, an average of 50 would be suitable only at the best of conditions - much of the road is narrow, twisty, and has no footpath - so you may well find pedestrians in the road around the next corner.
For a motorcycle this would not be a problem, while a van or bus would need to be able to stop quickly.
I think the new limit is acceptable, but clearly not a target.

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!