Sponsored Links

National Speed Limit

I am a professional driver and have driven large vehicles all over the country. I'd say 90% of all the accidents I have seen have been caused by some idiot driving too slowly. There is something really really wrong with these so called "sensible" drivers. (Coz that's what they say they are. I do not refer to actual sensible drivers) The problem is that they never crash. They cause the crash and drive past it umpteen minutes later.

I also was a driver of articulated vehicles until I retired fifteen months ago.
I entirely fail to see how the sensible drivers can possibly have caused an accident which occurs umpteen minutes ahead of them.
Please explain?
 
I also was a driver of articulated vehicles until I retired fifteen months ago.
I entirely fail to see how the sensible drivers can possibly have caused an accident which occurs umpteen minutes ahead of them.
Please explain?

No problem... Remember I referred to those "sensible" drivers who drive too slowly for the road... NOT actual sensible drivers.

Easy example. Straight stretch of road which is classed as a 60 limit. Idiot in front doing 40. Yes I do call that kind of driver an idiot and I don't care who agrees or not. So the queue of traffic forms behind them but it's a busy road so you can't overtake. So people get frustrated in the other cars. When the road clears it's not so safe to overtake but these people are so fed up that they overtake anyway. The first 2 or 3 overtake and they get past. The next frustrated sod overtakes and round the corner they have a crash. Now the person who crashed is at fault for overtaking when they shouldn't have. That's a gimme. So the road comes to a standstill and when the police arrive to move things on... umpteen minutes later... the slow git drives past shaking his/her head.

(I never said umpteen minutes ahead of them, perhaps I should have clarified that bit)

I can't count the number of times I have seen this.

Now sure enough the idiot who overtook when unsafe is to blame. Won't argue with that. However at the point before accident happened, same 60 limit at this point the slow git is now doing 30 as there are bends in the road. Bends that I would be happy taking a coach round at 50. (Note that I know how to control a vehicle very well and am not pushing it) A car could easily go round at 55 quite safely. So 50-55 I don't have an issue with. (i.e. you need to ease off to get round these bends but no more) (and chrislane if you were to ignore tachos and speed limits you could hit the limiter on the coach and be perfectly safe driving at 62 on the straights... so you know the kind of situations I refer to)

Directly or indirectly I am convinced that these people cause accidents.
If they were able to drive at the appropriate speed then there would be no need for the overtaking.

I have of course seen the flip side when some git is going too fast, loses control and crashes. Nowhere near in the same frequency as the example I gave.

Point is still the same. Reducing the speed limit is not needed. In fact I am convinced it will make things worse.
 
Travelling on a dual carriagway, national speed limit applies!
A truck in the left hand lane, speed of about 50-55mph.
A car in the left hand lane travelling behind the truck.
Youre in the right hand lane, travelling at around 70mph.

Youre about to overtake both the car and truck.
As you approach in line of the rear of the car, he decides to pull out so he can overtake the truck.
You break harshly.
Luckily there wasnt anyone behind you, or if the road was wet and you were on a slight long bend of the carriageway.

For that scenario it would make very little differance if everyone was travelling 10 or 20mph slower. The point is that theres too many slow or absent minded drivers on the road and they are the ones with no points on their license and no insurance claims as of own fault, they are the so called 'safe and sensible drivers'.

That doesnt go to say that all safe and sensible drivers are all bad. The same thing can be said about people that speed, safe and sensible drivers can speed and have great judgement/experiance of knowing when to slow down. Now it seems that 'everyone' that speeds are bad drivers.

People need to stop blaming speed as if its the be all and end of all reasons why accidents happen. Could even delve into the idea that if pedestrians had some slight responsibility when they cross the road that if they get run over it would be their own fault and not the car driver for travelling at 35 in a 30 limit road. Pedestrians have pathways, crossings etc so why not use them correctly instead of wondering off into the road as if everything will be ok.

If i had my way, seeing these young lads casually strolling across the road, oh how id love to carry on at a 'safe' speed aiming into his direction while he's on the road and run the **** down, or even speed up and make sure scum like that doesnt get to breed later. Human rights bs..
 
Last edited:
Directly or indirectly I am convinced that these people cause accidents.
If they were able to drive at the appropriate speed then there would be no need for the overtaking.

The speed limits are maximum speeds not minimum, nor are they advisory speeds. Too slow might get you pulled in for causing an obstruction, but there is no excuse for overtakers to drive dangerously. Wait behind until it is safe to overtake.
Slow drivers are NOT responsible for accidents that happen ahead of them. They are driving at a speed at which they can stop before they plough into the back of any hazards. Sensibly!
 
As a car driver and motorcycle rider, I'm glad I don't use roads too near some of the poster's in this thread. :laugh:
 
People need to stop blaming speed as if its the be all and end of all reasons why accidents happen. Could even delve into the idea that if pedestrians had some slight responsibility when they cross the road that if they get run over it would be their own fault and not the car driver for travelling at 35 in a 30 limit road. Pedestrians have pathways, crossings etc so why not use them correctly instead of wondering off into the road as if everything will be ok.

No the speed limit is 30mph, so stick to it. Especially if its a residential road (ie no markings). Its a maximum speed not a target.

By the same logic as forcing pedestrians to use crossing, drives should stick to the main roads and not bomb along residentials at 35.

FYI: I do disagree on the dropping of the national speed limit.
 
Sponsored Links
Robert you totally misunderstood what i said. As for driving along residential streets, they are roads arnt they? are there for cars use. Suppose i misunderstand you, but its like saying;
By the same logic, pedestrians should stick to their designated walkways and not step out onto a road, ever.
Same thing as telling a driver to not go over a particular speed.

Now;
If a car is found going over the speed limit then he gets prosecuted. Or even if he drives along a pathway.

If a pedestrian is walking on the road thats completely ok.
If a pedestrian is crossing the road without a care in the world or didnt look left and right that is completely ok, just blame it on the car driver that was going 20mph.

Yeah, its almost never the pedestrians fault is it, just blame it on the speed of the car..
If a pedestrian is hit on a road then they obviously didnt check if anything was coming. Even in the most built up of areas, a small narrow and short distance road with cars parked on both sides of the road all the way up the road shaped like an S, dry roads, visibility is clear ie no fog or darkness. It would take ALOT (maniac) of speed and thats if the car can reach the speed and handle the corners, for a pedestrian to get hit who has made sure no car is coming.

The point goes to show that pedestrians are entirely at fault for getting hit, people are so absent minded because they know they probably wont get hit because 'the law tells the drivers to drive at a reasonable speed as to not cause a collission'. If the car is going so fast that the driver loses control and swirves off the road then sure its the driver at fault for going at such a stupid speed for the road and the surrounding environment.

People are so engroced with the easy way out of things though, lacksidaisy mentality. Oh i stumbled onto the road, if that car was going slower then i wouldnt have lost a limb! Seriously, if thats the case, speed limits will keep getting slower, if it drops anymore we might as well all just get out and walk or use a bicycle. The idea of a car is to get from A to B in faster time, if not then why not just walk? we walk at what, 4 or 5mph? reduce the speed limit to 20mph, you got all the other cars on the road waiting at traffic lights everywhere, the time it would take you to get from A to B would be of very little difference using either a car or just walking. Atleast by walking you wont have any hassle or responsibility for others, yourself and your car, forking out money for insurance, MOT, service, cleaning, repairs, getting a license, paying £100's sometimes £1000s in total just to learn how to drive through to passing your test, and no need to pay road tax, etc etc etc.. can keep going on and on.
 
Last edited:
The speed limits are maximum speeds not minimum, nor are they advisory speeds. Too slow might get you pulled in for causing an obstruction, but there is no excuse for overtakers to drive dangerously. Wait behind until it is safe to overtake.
Slow drivers are NOT responsible for accidents that happen ahead of them. They are driving at a speed at which they can stop before they plough into the back of any hazards. Sensibly!

I agree with you that the speed limits are there as a maximum speed. I also agree that there is no excuse to overtake when dangerous.

However on those points. The Speed limits were set when vehicles didn't have as many safety features on them. So perhaps this needs a rethink. But certainly not by slowing things down more. On motorways for example I'm all in favour of derestrictions. For a modern car and a sensible driver (I use the term for a driver who has complete and proper control, observation etc.) 70 on a motorway is just too damn slow. German Autobahns are a much better example of how to run a road. (and yes they do all behave better on the roads than brits)

As for SLOW drivers not being responsible... I've stated why I think they share responsibility and I think we will have to agree to disagree.

The one point I'd make is that if they have to drive slowly to be able to avoid hazards then perhaps their reaction time is not good enough for them to drive and they should get a bus.

Robert Naylor said:
No the speed limit is 30mph, so stick to it. Especially if its a residential road (ie no markings). Its a maximum speed not a target.

By the same logic as forcing pedestrians to use crossing, drives should stick to the main roads and not bomb along residentials at 35.

FYI: I do disagree on the dropping of the national speed limit.

Robert only quoting this as you mention a point that keeps coming up. (Agree with your points pretty much on residential stuff)

This idea of a target.

Don't know exactly when this came up but have been hearing it more and more. The limit isn't a target etc.

It certainly was a target when I learned to drive. When I sat my PCV it was even more of a target.

The exact phrase being "What is the speed limit on this road? Why are you not doing it?" (And no I wasn't speeding)

If I had not stuck to speed limits I would have failed my PCV. So for me to become a professional driver I had to know how to stick to the speed limit.

So I can't agree that you should go slower than the speed limit unless there are factors that make it necessary to do so. Residential areas are the prime examples as speed does need adjusted.
So if "WE" are saying that doing 70 in a car on a bypass (dual-carriageway) is wrong and that I should go slower then I think "THEY" are insane. Furthermore I think that anyone doing 50 on a dual carriageway (unless they are in a LGV or equivalent) should have their license removed. Same goes for slow gits on A roads.

On the point of pedestrians...

When I was young I was taught how to walk on country roads and at the time there was the big push on the green cross code. So for my part I think that pedestrians should know how to cross a road or to walk safely near roadsides.

This seems to have lessened as time has gone on. For example the local primary school teaches children how to cross the road. This is ridiculous as they should know how to cross roads before they go to school. A bit off the point but what it seems to have brought about is that if nobody is teaching the kids then make the drivers suffer.

The 20 limits near schools and the 20 limits in schemes which are not needed.
(And I do have a young child who will be taught how to navigate roads as soon as he is able to walk near them)

This seems to be turning into a rant so apologies.

It just seems to get more and more of a nanny state and the sooner we get back to having decent values and common sense the better.
 
If a pedestrian is walking on the road thats completely ok.
If a pedestrian is crossing the road without a care in the world or didnt look left and right that is completely ok, just blame it on the car driver that was going 20mph.

Yeah, its almost never the pedestrians fault is it, just blame it on the speed of the car..
If a pedestrian is hit on a road then they obviously didnt check if anything was coming..

FYI..

I have had occasion where someone walked out in front of me. Same someone was knocked about 10 feet by the front end of a double decker bus.

Imagine if you will a big blue double decker pulling into a bus stop. Same said bus is slowing down from 30 to a halt. So about 2 feet from stopping (speed is irrelevant as it's the speed of a bus calmly coming to a stop for people to get off and on) some complete idiot steps off the kerb and walks dead on at the front of the bus.

What you cannot do in this instance is slam on the brakes. You are already slow and slowing and a sudden increase in braking will send your passengers flying into the windscreen and each other.

So as said this someone was knocked about 10 feet in front of the bus.

So here's what happens... (as close to how I can recall)

Everyone outside the bus runs to this person. Someone calls ambulance.
Bus driver (me) has to worry if any passengers are hurt first and foremost. However as the driver is experienced and didn't panic the passengers are fine. Just a bit of shock as to what happened.

So the 2 sides of story are. This Bus just hit this guy who was near the pavement. Knocked him a good whack down the road. AND Some moron walked in front of a bus and the driver couldn't do a damn thing about it.

So the police were called (By me I might add) and they take stories. Those outside are 50/50 as tho which version they tell. Those inside the bus tell the 2nd side. The police take the driver's statement and take him into back of car. Do breathalyser and all that and find nothing wrong. Bus company comes out also to check on everything.

Near the end of all this. Idiot who walked out is taken in ambulance. Bus driver is a bit shaken (I wonder why?) People who rushed to help knocked down person and who told both sides of story now want on the bus. (go figure) (2nd and 3rd bus have since passed by and left) This bus is going nowhere. Nice Policewoman even offers to accompany driver back to depot just to make sure he is ok and to let depot know that driver not at fault.

Idiot did try to sue bus company but got nowhere BTW.

Moral of the story.

It's not always the motorist who is the big bad wolf.

I've been through this and still don't drive as if in a panic. I will not drive any slower just incase someone does the same again. I couldn't have gone any slower at the point if I tried.

So yeah pedestrians can be at fault too.

Not saying that the motorist can choose to use the road as a racetrack either.

So sparkatb i can see your points and where you are coming from. Reading between the lines pretty much I think you are dead on. Just know that it's not nice having to deal with having hit a pedestrian and you can see why in residential areas people are more careful. (As I'm sure you are yourself) I hope you never have to go through it.

Point at the end of it all.

The Speed limit had sod all to do with any of this. Reducing the limit wouldn't have changed much. The whole idea of reducing any limit is just ludicrous to me.
 
@ EntityOnline:

The Speed limits were set when vehicles didn't have as many safety features on them.
...and when there were only a quarter of the vehicles on the road :rolleyes:

I think that anyone doing 50 on a dual carriageway (unless they are in a LGV or equivalent) should have their license removed. Same goes for slow gits on A roads.
Have you considered the fact that many people drive at 50 in a 70 zone simply because a car will do a hell of a lot more to the gallon at 50 than it will at 70?

If I'm driving from Cheltenham to Cornwall, then I do about 65 - 68mph on the motorway/dual carriageways so I get there in a reasonable time (is that too slow for you?). If I'm driving to somewhere less than about 50 miles from home, I stick to about 50mph in 60 and 70 zones because I can get virtually 60mpg at 50mph, and only about 46mpg at 70mph. Makes a huge difference in costs over a year's motoring.

Think green and consider your wallet ;)

Most of my working life has been driving (I'm 62 next month) and I drove coaches, taxis, LGV and HGV1 for many many years. During my driving life, I've seen many more accidents caused by people going too fast to stop in time, than accidents caused by slower drivers. The main reason slower drivers get blamed for some accidents is because most fast drivers are very impatient, and take chances overtaking where it isn't really safe to do so, just to get past slower drivers.
 
Just know that it's not nice having to deal with having hit a pedestrian and you can see why in residential areas people are more careful. (As I'm sure you are yourself) I hope you never have to go through it.
Yea, in a way thats like an angle i was coming from with what i was saying, as in how is it that its almost always the driver that seems to get the blame, or is aimed at. With all the awareness a driver has to cope with, and the laws he has to obey and such with all the possible worry about all things car and driving related, when it boils down to figuring out who to blame, keeping in mind people are always going to presume its the driver at fault (its a modern day taboo thing or something), people have to blame someone, statistics need food... 'what if the driver was going slower? - YES! speed was to blame ofcourse we shouldve realised that sooner!' :rolleyes:

And thats another thing. The 'only' reason i keep to the speed limit is incase someone ever does run out infront of me so that in the back of my mind id think what a rearhole he is as he's laying there crying/shouting out for help, amusing myself but not expressing it. Seriously i dont care for idiots like that no matter who they are, to think all the blame for road accidents goes to the driver, it really makes my blood boil it really does, and im not even an angry or mad sorter person lol, im SO laid back and easy going, but the law is an utter f'in joke it really takes the weewee.
 
Sponsored Links
...and when there were only a quarter of the vehicles on the road :rolleyes:
Yea, now theres heavy traffic everywhere, as soon as you casually touch the speed limit (if lucky enough to get to that speed) youre then already slowing down for the next traffic jam/lights. Same on motorways/carriageways, all lanes taken up you got 2 choices: tailgate the car infront in the right side lane, or fall back into the left side lane and go into brain dead auto-pilot mode. I personly dont care so i just falls into the slow lane. What once used to be a 'no more than' 10 minutes journey, is now atleast a 30 minute journey.

30 years ago you could go any speed your car could handle and no one viewed it as a problem, my dad has told me stories of when he was in his late teens and early 20s he used to reguarly see many motorbikes really pushing the engines limit up and down all main roads, they used to really bomb it. Now theres speed cameras almost everywhere, strict and highly enforced speed limits everywhere. And to top it off, as if we cant get anywhere much faster anyway what with traffic all over the place, they want to drop the speed limit, great... journey time has just been increased to atleast 40 minutes. What with drivers getting into a more slower paced driving mind, pulling even slower away from traffic lights, causing a more gridlock style knock-on effect to cars behind.
 
I hit a pedestrian many years ago; I say "I hit", although strictly speaking the front of my car had already passed her when she stepped out into the road and straight onto my windscreen, missing the 4 1/2 feet of bonnet entirely!!!
Luckily for her I was only doing 10MPH in a queue of traffic, but I have had many near misses with people when I have been doing nearly 30; usually people walking out into the road without looking and many of them pushing baby buggies.
I had one stride out from behind a parked van with two children and I only managed to stop inches from the first one; of course it was all my fault!!; she screeched, swore at me and made a complaint to my employers!!

Anyone seen the latest tax scheme proposal?? £20 to see your GP!!
 
Have you considered the fact that many people drive at 50 in a 70 zone simply because a car will do a hell of a lot more to the gallon at 50 than it will at 70?

...

Think green and consider your wallet ;)
Have I considered that. Yes.

Think green. Spose in my own way I do.

Point 1. I'd still put em off the road if I could. (Would aid the issue with more traffic on the roads) More reasonably I'd like them to stick to the inside lane where they can happily toddle along and let the rest of us past. However as is all too frequent they sit in the ouside lane slowing all traffic down without pulling in. So in that case I say get em off the roads.

Point 2. My way of thinking green. I am not a petrolhead in anyway. I drive a reasonably decent diesel with particualate filter to stop the reek as much as possible. I treat it with additives which improve the cetane levels, stop smoke and generally allow it to burn at a higher percentage and give me more mpg. So overall my wallet gets hurt less. The rest of the green stuff is mostly pure propaganda.

If I could be sure I could run on 100% biodiesel without hurting the car I would. Heard both sides on this and not sure which way to go.

What I can't agree with is the whole 56mph brigade (or less)

And the number of vehicles on the road is not something that should slow roads down. The problem as always is the idiots behind the wheel. If these peole didn't bunch up and didn't get stuck behind the slow gits. If they left reasonable distances between them... the list goes on... The roads would be far better to drive on.

Still I make the point that reducing any speed limits is a farce.

Oh..
Mender said:
65 - 68mph on the motorway/dual carriageways so I get there in a reasonable time (is that too slow for you?)
Not unless you are in the outside lane when people want to get past.:p
 
Having carried out extensive testing over many years in my huge people carrier I know that speed makes no difference to my MPG until I get over 75MPH UNLESS I open the vent windows; when I do that something miraculous happens, my MPG at lower speeds increases slightly, but if I up my speed to 80MPH my MPG improves by upto 20%!!!
Strange spoiler effect??

(Same effect in 2 different vehicles of the same type, I got a newer one when the 1st passed 250k)
 
Having carried out extensive testing over many years in my huge people carrier I know that speed makes no difference to my MPG until I get over 75MPH UNLESS I open the vent windows; when I do that something miraculous happens, my MPG at lower speeds increases slightly, but if I up my speed to 80MPH my MPG improves by upto 20%!!!
Strange spoiler effect??

(Same effect in 2 different vehicles of the same type, I got a newer one when the 1st passed 250k)

Can't comment (yet) on my new car, but the previous one was a piece of crap Citroen C5 2.2 HDi Y-Reg I got for running up and down the road to work. Refused to get something decent as all I was doing was sticking 80 odd miles on it a weekday and more at the weekend.

(Public transport would have cost me £4 more per day and added 2 hours. That and previously having been a bus/coach driver I really don't fancy travelling with the hoards of the unwashed)

It was exactly as you say. Mpg made little or no difference up to 70... hit 80 in the thing and the Mpg seemed to shoot up. Was getting between 60-65mpg. That and the damned thing had a shaky steering wheel at 70. (all to do with the Citroen/Peugeot Solid centre Alloys which never seem to balance properly)

BTW. The woman who complained to your employers. Know EXACTLY what you mean. Never their fault is it?
 
Sponsored Links
Top
Cheap BIG ISPs for 100Mbps+
Community Fibre UK ISP Logo
150Mbps
Gift: None
Virgin Media UK ISP Logo
Virgin Media £22.99
132Mbps
Gift: None
Vodafone UK ISP Logo
Vodafone £24.00 - 26.00
150Mbps
Gift: None
NOW UK ISP Logo
NOW £24.00
100Mbps
Gift: None
Plusnet UK ISP Logo
Plusnet £25.99
145Mbps
Gift: £50 Reward Card
Large Availability | View All
Cheapest ISPs for 100Mbps+
Gigaclear UK ISP Logo
Gigaclear £17.00
200Mbps
Gift: None
Community Fibre UK ISP Logo
150Mbps
Gift: None
Virgin Media UK ISP Logo
Virgin Media £22.99
132Mbps
Gift: None
Hey! Broadband UK ISP Logo
150Mbps
Gift: None
Youfibre UK ISP Logo
Youfibre £23.99
150Mbps
Gift: None
Large Availability | View All
Sponsored Links
The Top 15 Category Tags
  1. FTTP (6028)
  2. BT (3639)
  3. Politics (2721)
  4. Business (2440)
  5. Openreach (2405)
  6. Building Digital UK (2330)
  7. Mobile Broadband (2146)
  8. FTTC (2083)
  9. Statistics (1902)
  10. 4G (1816)
  11. Virgin Media (1764)
  12. Ofcom Regulation (1582)
  13. Fibre Optic (1467)
  14. Wireless Internet (1462)
  15. 5G (1407)
Sponsored

Copyright © 1999 to Present - ISPreview.co.uk - All Rights Reserved - Terms  ,  Privacy and Cookie Policy  ,  Links  ,  Website Rules