Why no minimum speed limits? , page 3

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 6 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 3 times

reply posted on 13-1-2009 @ 05:31 PM by lizziejayne

The main issue IMO is that consistently driving at a speed far less than the speed limit (for example 40mph on a 70mph motorway), often indicates other factors that negatively impact driving ability.

Sometimes these drivers are trying to mitigate something else that influences their driving ability; whether it be deteriorated eye sight, delayed reaction times, marked lack of confidence etc. I have often seen people trundling along on a motorway, only to notice on overtaking that they're lent up almost fixed to the windscreen, squinting for their lives.

The most ironic thing is when someone says they go so slow because it's safer. The fact they hog the slow lane and force all the HGVs, caravans etc into the middle and fast lanes during rush hour, is apparently not in the realms of "safety"

reply posted on 13-1-2009 @ 05:35 PM by Bob Down Under

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander

Originally posted by Bob Down Under

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.

If the road was slippery, and they were going so fast that they could not stop when an obstacle presented itself, the young driver is to blame not the old woman.

Even if the speed limit is 70mph if the road conditions are bad, (heavy rain or snow, ice, etc) you can still be ticketed for speeding. Speed limits are the maximum speed you are allowed to travel on a road assuming ideal conditions. If the road conditions are less than ideal, even if you are not exceeding the posted speed limit you can still be penalized for driving recklessly.

I also have seen "minimum speed limits" on various roads, but what people should realize is that that also assumes ideal conditions. If you car suddenly should become disabled, (say a tire blows) no one is going to assume you have to maintain 45 mph until you find a safe turn off. If their are white out conditions or heavy fog, no one is going to expect you to maintain 45 mph either. The minimum safe speed is much more likely to vary than the maximum safe speed.

The can make all the laws they want, but driving is still a matter or using good sense to navigate the roadways.

I agree with what your saying but I was refering to reckless driving at slow speeds in good weather.

How can someone be booked for driving just under the limit and having someone pull out on you with no where to go and no time to break.

The situation was just under 60klm into a 110klm freeway and theres is no way anyone can stop at that speed when a car drops in front you with about 10meters to spare?.

reply posted on 13-1-2009 @ 05:37 PM by Bob Down Under

Originally posted by lizziejayne
The main issue IMO is that consistently driving at a speed far less than the speed limit (for example 40mph on a 70mph motorway), often indicates other factors that negatively impact driving ability.

Sometimes these drivers are trying to mitigate something else that influences their driving ability; whether it be deteriorated eye sight, delayed reaction times, marked lack of confidence etc. I have often seen people trundling along on a motorway, only to notice on overtaking that they're lent up almost fixed to the windscreen, squinting for their lives.

The most ironic thing is when someone says they go so slow because it's safer. The fact they hog the slow lane and force all the HGVs, caravans etc into the middle and fast lanes during rush hour, is apparently not in the realms of "safety"

Spot on Lizzie just the point I was trying to make.

reply posted on 13-1-2009 @ 05:38 PM by woogleuk

Well im sorry folks, i am just after all voicing my opinions, and I guess they are not wanted on his site, and it upsets me,, because out of all the sites i have read on the internet that spark my interest, this is the best, i always thought you could speak your mind, they obviously dont take into considertation culturial differences, so, sorry skepticoverlord, weedwhacker, Memoryshock, Mirthful Me etc etc, i'm outta here, I wish you all the best

reply posted on 13-1-2009 @ 05:40 PM by asmeone2

Originally posted by lizziejayne
The main issue IMO is that consistently driving at a speed far less than the speed limit (for example 40mph on a 70mph motorway), often indicates other factors that negatively impact driving ability.

Sometimes these drivers are trying to mitigate something else that influences their driving ability; whether it be deteriorated eye sight, delayed reaction times, marked lack of confidence etc. I have often seen people trundling along on a motorway, only to notice on overtaking that they're lent up almost fixed to the windscreen, squinting for their lives.

The most ironic thing is when someone says they go so slow because it's safer. The fact they hog the slow lane and force all the HGVs, caravans etc into the middle and fast lanes during rush hour, is apparently not in the realms of "safety"

Yes, very good

If there is something that severely mitigating, they probably should not be driving. It is very selfish, IMO.

reply posted on 13-1-2009 @ 05:42 PM by Illusionsaregrander

Originally posted by asmeone2

Of course the driver who was involved in the accident might have brought it upon himself, from a legal standpoint, but he would not have been in that situation if the person was going proper speed.

You are required to maintain a "safe distance" from other vehicles while driving, and he/she failed to.

I know what you are trying to say, but one can argue using the logic you use above in a lot of cases. For instance, "I know I ran a red light, but if the other cars had not been driving through the intersection with their lights off..."

Ultimately, it doesnt matter if someone else is breaking a law if you are too. You are responsible for your end of the deal, and they are responsible for theirs. Older people tend to drive slower because their reaction time slows down. They need more time to make judgment calls. I really dont think that you are going to increase road safety by forcing people to drive faster than they feel able.

You might argue that if they cant drive a certain speed they shouldnt be on the road at all, but even someone who is younger can have a reason, (something in their eye, obstacle ahead of them, etc) that forces them to slow down too. Really, people need to drive defensively and be on the lookout for the unexpected. Personally, I have to adjust my driving much more often for people driving too fast and recklessly than for someone driving chronically slow.

[edit on 13-1-2009 by Illusionsaregrander]

reply posted on 13-1-2009 @ 05:45 PM by Ant4AU

reply to post by lizziejayne

lizzie has nailed it this thread is no longer needed everyone just refer to her post.

reply posted on 13-1-2009 @ 05:49 PM by Illusionsaregrander

Originally posted by Bob Down Under

How can someone be booked for driving just under the limit and having someone pull out on you with no where to go and no time to break.

I dont think you would be ticketed for that.

Originally posted by Bob Down Under
The situation was just under 60klm into a 110klm freeway and theres is no way anyone can stop at that speed when a car drops in front you with about 10meters to spare?.

In this case, if the vehicle was merging with traffic, its not a speed issue, it is failing to yield. Most ramps that have you merge are set with a lower speed than the highway you are merging onto, you are required to yield to the traffic on the freeway, and only merge into traffic when it is safe.

Edit to add, I think part of the problem is that I am not understanding the terms you use in your part of the world.

I have never heard of a "slip road" and assumed you meant a slippery road. lol.

[edit on 13-1-2009 by Illusionsaregrander]

reply posted on 13-1-2009 @ 05:49 PM by asmeone2

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander

I know, I get that angle too. It's just that "safe distance" is often so hard to judge... until you know that it is unsafe.

For instance, do you really have the ability to know that you are far enough behind the guy in front of you, at a red light, that you won't hit him if you are rear-ended?

Or can you judge if you are applying the brakes far enough back to avoid hitting someone who slams on the brakes right as the light turns yellow, instead of going through as they should?

Or if you have enough room to pass someone, allowing for the chance that the guy behind you in the left lane might speed up for some reason?

Even outside of situations like that, how many of us can actually maintain 100% vigilance on the road, at all times? Not many.

In the technical legal sense, these people would be at fault of the accident, but *only* because someone else made a bad decision. The traffic laws often absolve people who are equally, even wholly, cuplable.

reply posted on 13-1-2009 @ 05:51 PM by Bob Down Under

Originally posted by woogleuk
Well im sorry folks, i am just after all voicing my opinions, and I guess they are not wanted on his site, and it upsets me,, because out of all the sites i have read on the internet that spark my interest, this is the best, i always thought you could speak your mind, they obviously dont take into considertation culturial differences, so, sorry skepticoverlord, weedwhacker, Memoryshock, Mirthful Me etc etc, i'm outta here, I wish you all the best

Sorry to see you go ?

No one on here was giving you a hard time apart from yourself and yes you voiced your opinions well and were noted.

You seem to have a problem with other members?

Now lets get back on topic and GET OVER IT!

[edit on 13-1-2009 by Bob Down Under]

reply posted on 13-1-2009 @ 05:51 PM by Anonymous ATS

reply to post by asmeone2

Most roads do have minimum speed limits in the US.

What I find funny is the belief that speeders are the biggest menace on the roads. Statistics prove again and again that that conjecture is not true.

In the US studies show that 60-70% of peopel speed when they drive. They also show that 30-40% of traffic fatalities are due to speeders. When you do the math it comes out that 60-70% of driving deaths come at the hands of the 30-40% that do not speed.

I attribute that to the fact that people who speed tend to have better overall reflexes than those who do not. Speed should be a personal choice.

By Disgusted by Humanity - unable to log in for more than a week now - form is bad message.

reply posted on 13-1-2009 @ 05:58 PM by Illusionsaregrander

reply to post by asmeone2

Well, so far I have been able to judge how much time I need to stop.

Lol on the "going through the yellow light as they should." Are you from New Mexico? Because it does seem here that people assume you are supposed to speed up on yellow, but in fact, you are not.

Granted, some drivers do stop so suddenly that it is a hard brake for them on a yellow, where I would have gone on through rather than slam on my brakes, but the person behind them should be preparing to stop anyway. One car might have a legitimate excuse to enter the intersection on a yellow, but really there is no legitimate reason for the car behind them to do so.

reply posted on 13-1-2009 @ 06:04 PM by Bob Down Under

Originally posted by asmeone2
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander

I know, I get that angle too. It's just that "safe distance" is often so hard to judge... until you know that it is unsafe.

For instance, do you really have the ability to know that you are far enough behind the guy in front of you, at a red light, that you won't hit him if you are rear-ended?

Or can you judge if you are applying the brakes far enough back to avoid hitting someone who slams on the brakes right as the light turns yellow, instead of going through as they should?

Or if you have enough room to pass someone, allowing for the chance that the guy behind you in the left lane might speed up for some reason?

Even outside of situations like that, how many of us can actually maintain 100% vigilance on the road, at all times? Not many.

In the technical legal sense, these people would be at fault of the accident, but *only* because someone else made a bad decision. The traffic laws often absolve people who are equally, even wholly, cuplable.

It seems most of us are now coming to the same conlusion and thanks again for the post.

Star & Flaged

Keep well

[edit on 13-1-2009 by Bob Down Under]

reply posted on 13-1-2009 @ 06:21 PM by g raj

I live in washington state, the home of the idiot driver, and i think they could free up the traffic bottleneck, and increase their revenue if they would make obstruction of traffic and failure to yield even more expensive than speeding.

As it is now, you waste so much time sitting behind these left lane monopolizers who refuse to pass, going under the speed limit, dipstick stuck to their ear, with the cell phone safety zone of 7 car lengths in front of them, glaring at me in the mirror cause i'm the A-hole who wants to actually get somewhere, not catch up with my family back home using my anytime minutes.

Rather than force them incompetent ones to come up to speed, they reward them by pulling over the people who speed past after finally getting a break in traffic. I think it is part of the dumbing down of the people. By ticketing and harassing the people who are actually trying to do what you are supposed to do behind the wheel(get from one place to the other as quickly, safely, and effortlessly as possible), and letting the others get away with ticketable offenses(obstruction, failure to yield), they are creating a system which encourages underperformance, and punishes competence. I am not in any way insinuating that everyone who speeds is a competent driver, but i have seen more dangerous behaviour from the scared-to-drive crowd than the(slowly dwindling population of)people who drive the speed limit or above.

reply posted on 13-1-2009 @ 06:26 PM by Ant4AU

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander

Oh it's common knowledge that the yellow light is 'suppose' to mean slow down it about to change to red.

It actually means, to the majority, speed up you are about to get caught by a red light.

reply posted on 13-1-2009 @ 06:31 PM by lizziejayne

reply to post by asmeone2

If there is something that severely mitigating, they probably should not be driving. It is very selfish, IMO.

I very much agree

However, I truly believe that many people haven't even given much thought to why they drive so slow - which is frightening in itself IMO.

With regards to the people who know that they have driving "deficits", the fact that they do not address this is reckless to say the least. And yet, I hear very little of Police booking such people, despite driving in what can be percieved as a dangerous manner. More often than not, it seems to be a "quiet word in your ear" and on your way. Go 7mph over 70 and you're pulled, booked and fined.

I'm by no means advocating or supporting speeding. It just seems illogical to me that you can get hauled over the coals for driving a little over the limit (which could put you at higher risk of being in a collision), whilst your actions are relatively overlooked - and maybe even subject to a veiled pity, "oh bless" - if you crawl at a snail speed (which could cause multiple pile-ups alongside and behind you)

[edit on 13/1/09 by lizziejayne]

reply posted on 13-1-2009 @ 06:33 PM by asmeone2

reply to post by g raj

Oh yeah, driving with cell phones, another thing that should be outlawed. It's been proven to be as incapacitating as drunk driving, I don't see why it doesn't carry as harsh a sentance.

reply posted on 13-1-2009 @ 06:35 PM by asmeone2

reply to post by lizziejayne

We are in complete agreement.

One person's right to drive should not be extended to situations which put others in danger.

It may be more controversial, but I also beleive the very elderly should be tested for driving proficiancy to renew their liscences.

reply posted on 13-1-2009 @ 06:52 PM by lizziejayne

reply to post by asmeone2

Again, I agree.

Unfortunately, as you say, the very elderly area is often a controversial one. And yet a logical one, if only due to the acknowledged reduction of response time with increased age.

I think driving for the very elderly is often the last clutch (no pun intended) of independence and frequently the sole means via which they can socialise - hence the reluctance to give it up by those who, in reality, should. In such instances, whilst I appreciate and empathise with their reasons for continuing to drive, it can't be considered anything other than irresponsible.

The UK has now made it law for people to renew their driving licence at 70. However, as I understand, there are no additional driving tests required. From what I understand, it simply represents a prompt for people to notify the DVLA of medical conditions which could affect their driving ability. As such, it does not capture the other individual effects of increasing years, which could - or could not - cause problems in driving.

I think the introduction of a re-test - or even re-tests at tiered ages - would be a sterling idea. However, in practice, I don't know how frequently these should take place and whether they would be sufficient. I'm sure we've all known elderly people whose faculties have rapidly declined without them even acknowledging it. Therefore, even a re-test of every 3-5 years could represent too big a gap.

Ultimately, I think it's the responsibility of everyone on the road to ensure that they're "up to the job" as it were and to recognise when it's time to address issues or give up the wheel.

[edit on 13/1/09 by lizziejayne]

reply posted on 13-1-2009 @ 06:56 PM by asmeone2

reply to post by lizziejayne

It would be a difficult thing to implement, for sure.

Perhaps after the age of 70, they would be required to take some kind of test, like a vision, reflex, basic medical test?

I understand that certain medical condistions, for people of any age, will call tehir driver's lisence into question.