It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why no minimum speed limits?

page: 1
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 13 2009 @ 03:09 PM
link   
This is probably the one and only place where I would like to see more regulations put into place.

I think that, just as cities enforce a maximum driving speed, there should be a minimum.

I have seen so many people wreck or almost wreck because of driving too slow on a road--not to mention, they can greatly impede the flow of traffic.

I do not know the physics to know what a safe margin would be, but I think that on roads that are faster than, say, 40 MPH a minimum shoudl be enforced.

If the minimum is 50MPH, for instance, you must cruise at at least 45 MPH, if it is 60 MPH you must cruise at least 55MHP.

I think that someone will respond and say "Well, those drivers are going as fast as they feel is safe! Don't pick on Grandma!" No, I think it is more unsafe to them and the person around them, and that if they do not feel they can drive safely at the proper speed, they should reconsider whether they should drive.




posted on Jan, 13 2009 @ 03:16 PM
link   
Dunno if you are in the UK or not, but over here there is a "virtual" minimum speed limit, its roughly about 70% of that roads limit, and you will get pulled over if you drop below it, from personal experience (not me driving). i'm sorry to disagree with you, but you should be allowed to drive at a "reasonable" speed that you feel safe at, as long as there is adequate room for people to overtake.

[edit on 13/1/09 by woogleuk]



posted on Jan, 13 2009 @ 03:17 PM
link   
Every highway I've been on has had a minimum speed of 45 well posted.

I dont know if there is a standing rule as to a minimum on town roads. Drivers Ed was many, many years ago. I supposed you could start cruising around town at 15 and see if you get pulled over. Pulled over for driving too slow not for suspicion of being intoxicated.



posted on Jan, 13 2009 @ 03:18 PM
link   
I agree with you completely. I'm fighting my way through college as a delivery driver for a pizza chain. I personally have witnessed multiple rear end wrecks and chain reaction wrecks...due to drivers traveling grossly under the speed limit in rush hour traffic.

I have also noticed a correlation between the use of turn signals and speed. This may seem odd but I have noticed that drivers traveling much slower than the speed limit tend to use their signals much less than others. I'm not exactly sure why that is, but I have come to be more vigilant when trapped behind someone impeding traffic as they create multiple dangerous situations.

It doesn't help driving 20+ miles under the speed limit with all the road rage that is on the road to begin with.



posted on Jan, 13 2009 @ 03:30 PM
link   
I believe there is a minumum speed limit. At least in all the states I have lived in. When you get your drivers manual, it states it inside of it. Im just not sure many people pay attention to it.

I have also seen some speed signs on roads that say Max xx and Min xx
But those are far and few between.



posted on Jan, 13 2009 @ 03:34 PM
link   
Hm, I think this may vary from state to state. Here there is no minuimum. Those of you who do live where there is one--please chime in on how you think it works.



posted on Jan, 13 2009 @ 03:36 PM
link   
reply to post by woogleuk
 


WHile I agree with you that virtual cops are unethical, I do not think that someone has the right to drive as they feel safe, if it is a danger to others.

It's like saying, someone could drive as fast as they want, as long as they think they can drive safely. Or they can drive as drunk as they want, as long as they think they can handle the car.



posted on Jan, 13 2009 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by asmeone2
Hm, I think this may vary from state to state. Here there is no minuimum. Those of you who do live where there is one--please chime in on how you think it works.


Well, I have a lot of cop friends and ive never heard of any of them talking about pulling people over for going to slow. And I seem to always live where people drive fast (and crazy) lol.

I think if someone was going super slow on a highway, I would think a cop would pull them over because that is just stupid and dangerous.

But IMO I think cops are more about enforcing speeders, now slow drivers.


Here are the posted speed limits in all states:

en.wikipedia.org...



Minimum speed limits
In addition to the legally defined maximum speed, minimum speed limits may be applicable. Occasionally there are default minimum speed limits for certain types of roads, generally freeways.

Comparable to the common basic speed rule, most jurisdictions also have laws prohibiting speeds so low they are dangerous or obstruct the normal flow of traffic.




[edit on 1/13/2009 by greeneyedleo]



posted on Jan, 13 2009 @ 03:55 PM
link   
I disagree, i apologise, at the end of the day, we are taught, as the drivier behind, we have to pay more attention than the driver in front, thats we have a "distance from the car in front", at the end of the day we have scooter riders, who can't, technically, go faster than 30-40MPH, there are cyclists who do 15-20MPH, if you fly over a hill at 40MPH, and there is a scooter rider in front, and you hit him, its your fault. YES, when your driving a car there SHOULD be a minimum speed limit, but I wouldn't have a problem with someone driving at 30MPH in a 40MPH zone, or 40/50MPH in a 60MPH zone if they dont feel safe handling a car at those speeds, as long as they can handle the car at the speed they confident with, and they give me room to overtake, as long as they dont take the mickey, then fine.

When you are driving at high speed a car is less controllable than at low speed, when you are drunk you are less controllable (although i do disagree with the maximum alcohol limit, in the UK its pretty much 1 pint of beer, it should be 2, maybe 3, i personally can drink 4-5 pints before feeling tipsy, and i'm not a strong drinker).

EDIT: Disagreeing with asmeone2 here

[edit on 13/1/09 by woogleuk]

[edit on 13/1/09 by woogleuk]



posted on Jan, 13 2009 @ 04:03 PM
link   
reply to post by woogleuk
 


Not to sound harsh, but if you don't feel safe driving at the posted speed limit, then don't drive. If you ride a bike, stay off the roads. Get a scooter that goes faster, they do make them.

Don't endanger other people because you want to poke around like some old biddy who can barely see and has slow reaction time.



posted on Jan, 13 2009 @ 04:13 PM
link   
reply to post by asmeone2
 



I actually think that its roughly 15 mph slower than the max. It's seems like i remember seeing min 45 mph on our freeways when the max was 60. It has been a few years so i may be mistaken. But i do believe its 15 mph slower. Anything under that you can be pulled over.



posted on Jan, 13 2009 @ 04:16 PM
link   
Great post


Your not the only one who has issues concerning slow drivers.

There was an 80yr old woman who killed a young family in thier late 20s with two small children, while driving off a slip road on to a freeway/highway at 60klm and the max speed here in OZ is 110klm on freeways.

They could not pull over into the oppersite lane as it was full and did not have time to stop as she just swung straight in to the freeway.

And as you can guess the OLD BAT survived.

I have been driving and riding motorcycles for 34yrs and have witnessed so many accidents cause by incorrect speed and I do not meaning speeding either.



posted on Jan, 13 2009 @ 04:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Finn1916
 


Hey, no, I will admit, hopefully not incriminate me, I had a Mercedes 130E a few years back and I did 155MPH all the way back from Glasgow, the max speed limit on british motor ways is 70MPH, but this was in the early morning with little to no cars on the motorway, i'm saying that if a person, who is fully competent at drving, but feels unconfortable at certain speeds, on certain roads, shouldn't be discriminated against if they drive at 10-30% under the speed limit, its a speed LIMIT, not a must drive at speed.



posted on Jan, 13 2009 @ 04:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Bob Down Under
 


Bob, i really dont want to offend your opinions here, i dont know the full story, but, the family driving should have taken into consideration that there are cars in front, what if there had been a tail back, would the same situation not applied? would a complete standstill of traffic not have allowed them to have slowed down if they were following the rules of the road? The old lady was still moving, if it had been a tailback it would have been worse, think logic my
friend, and please do not take offence at my opinions, none is meant.

EDIT: Ok it doesn't get much worse than a whole young family dying, but i stand by my original statement that, if, they had been driving properley, they may have survived, hitting an old lady driving slow is better than hitting a tailback, a or a stationary object, be prepared when you are on the road, anything could happen, and I feel for the family of those young people, but road accidents will happen


[edit on 13/1/09 by woogleuk]

[edit on 13/1/09 by woogleuk]



posted on Jan, 13 2009 @ 04:27 PM
link   
reply to post by woogleuk
 


I agree with Bob here. When your flowing along do the limet in one lane passing people slower in the other lane and ole poke along pulls out infront of you not paying attention. You just better hope you have good breaks because you are about to get tail light snack. I honestly think the maximum limit is slow enough you don't like them or scared to drive them find the backroads or carpool.



posted on Jan, 13 2009 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by woogleuk
reply to post by Bob Down Under
 


Bob, i really dont want to offend your opinions here, i dont know the full story, but, the family driving should have taken into consideration that there are cars in front, what if there had been a tail back, would the same situation not applied? would a complete standstill of traffic not have allowed them to have slowed down if they were following the rules of the road? The old lady was still moving, if it had been a tailback it would have been worse, think logic my friend, and please do not take offence at my opinions, none is meant.


Sorry to disagree, But when on a slip road leading onto a freeway you have to get up to speed relating to the traffic and conditions if there is room to enter it safely not just swing in at a low speed.

If not you slow and wait for and opening in the traffic long enough so as not to cause anyone to brake hard or take avaisive actions.



posted on Jan, 13 2009 @ 04:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Ant4AU
 


eh???????? the quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dogs, just to satisfy the two line limit........but eh? sorry m8, i really didn't get that? Just to add, in case i did have a basic understanding, I dont agree with any limits, i think you should be able to drive at any speed you want, whether its 200MPH in a supercar, or 40MPH on your little scooter, I think the penalties for accidents should vary, but then at speed its the ultimate penalty usualy, death. IMO



posted on Jan, 13 2009 @ 04:35 PM
link   
Why no minimum speed limits? Because of bad weather. With black ice, or bad snow, do you really need a cop pulling you over for not going to minimum?



posted on Jan, 13 2009 @ 04:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Bob Down Under
 


Sorry to disagree, But when on a slip road leading onto a freeway you have to get up to speed relating to the traffic and conditions if there is room to enter it safely not just swing in at a low speed.

If not you slow and wait for and opening in the traffic long enough so as not to cause anyone to brake hard or take avaisive actions.

Now im not too familiar with your road laws, im assuming a slip road is the road leading off the highway / motorway?? In the UK we have 3 lanes on a motorway, lane 1 is for people entering the motorway, driving at a casual speed/leaving the motorway, Lane 2 is for people driving at their own speed that is under the 70MPH limit, but over a silly slow speed, and lane is for overtaking if you want to do the 70MPH limit.

Now one thing I can relate on, "If not you slow and wait for and opening in the traffic long enough so as not to cause anyone to brake hard or take avaisive actions." If you are following at a reasonable braking distance, then that not need to apply? There may be a problem here on different laws, so sorry once again if i dont quite follow you, lol



posted on Jan, 13 2009 @ 04:40 PM
link   
This is a typical Sunday drivers attitude.

To Qoute

" I am a good and safe driver and I keep well under the speed limit and I dont care what the other drivers are doing as I am not breaking and Laws so I will do what I want to do"



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join