So sad

[Pebs]

Originally Posted by Will

No. But when overtaking you have to exceed the limit. They teach you to make safe progress, and by that it's utilising the ability of the car and the road visibility and surface the the best of their training.

I actively make the choice to break the speed limit. Whether it be by a little or double or triple - it's my call. Sometimes I even go underneath it!!!!

Why do you need to overtake if they're travelling at the speed limit?

OK, Im not going to preach, I speed and I have the points to prove it, but TRIPLE the speed limit? Thats just insanely irresponsible.

[divine]

Originally Posted by Pebs

Why do you need to overtake if they're travelling at the speed limit?

What if they're not?

What if they're doing 50 in a 60? Annoying slower than the limit but going past at 60 would leave you on the opposite side of the road for a needlessly extended period of time, whereas you are far safer minimising your time on the opposite side by overtaking at say 80 instead.

[Pebs]

Sure, my comment was daft. Ignore that line

[Will]

IT's all about TED (time exposed to danger) being at a minimum, i.e. overtake as quickly as possible so you're not on the wrong side of the road.

I was on my private track at the time And yes I'm irresponsible, but I jumped out of planes and rockclimbed with no safety line... so sue me

[Pebs]

Your post talks about speed limits and driving at triple the speed limit. Best case scenario is 90mph in a 30 zone. I've ive got the wrong end of the stick I apologise but I didnt thing tracks had speed limits.

[Will]

I was being a little facetious, I'm sorry. I'd never do 90 in a 30 ever. Not even the police would get away with it. Triple figures on the motorway I won't rule out though.

[Pebs]

Which is insane.

[divine]

Why is 100mph necessarily 'insane' on what may well be a virtually empty, mostly straight road, in a well looked after car?

[PvtPyle]

Quite right divine. And additionally, why is it always assumed that the driver who is driving at greater than 70mph is at fault? I was driving home from Bristol the other night down the M4, it was clear as a bell and drier than the Sahara. I did 90/100 the entire way without any problems whatsoever, until a blind, mute failed medical experiment in a Citroen who was sat in the middle lane decided to bang an indicator on and pull out at the last minute. Say I hit him, and I walked away whilst him and his two kids died. Who wants to bet money that I would be vilified in the press, when in fact the accident only occurred because of an error made by someone who shouldn't be on the road at all?

People's attitude to speed on the road is often black and white, when I don't believe it is that simple.

Edit: I can also sympathise with the young lad who is facing a 7 year stretch in prison here. He made a stupid mistake, one that has destroyed people's lives. He isn't a murderer though IMHO.

[PvtPyle]

Originally Posted by Will

Look at germany, their motorways are unrestricted, yet they have over 40% less accidents on the motorways than we do. The reason being is a) they have to slow down at junctions/merge points, b) they have to pull in after overtaking c) they get castigated for tailgating. They have very strict rules and people obey them.

People in the UK on the whole do not know how to drive, they drive to close, rubber neck, have poor lane discipline, are bad at anticipating and do not leave any margin for error. I'm no driving god, but I do know how to handle a car within my limits and do so, unfortunately it may (and probably does) exceed other people's limitations and as such do not drive like that all the time, only when it's safe to do so.

People here have no idea on the dangers or the responsibilities of owning a car.

Speed does not kill - it's the idiot behind the wheel that does.

Could not agree more with any of this if I tried.