Congratulations on your new born, I am in the same position with an 8 week old.
I cannot condone speeding in a 30MPH zone due to pedestrains and other potential issues. Is 25MPH suficient, that depends on how congested and how many potential hazards exist, you need to make that call.
As to driving at 25MPH just because you have a new born, I don't agree with that. Babies are a lot more hardy than you give them credit (is it your first?). The difference between 30MPH and 25 MPH will be negligable in an emergency stop for your baby. Having said that, the time difference in your journey will also be negligable going 30MPH as opposed to 25MPH.
My only issue is that by travelling at 25MPH you may induce another motorist, rightly or wrongly, to create issues for you by aggressive driving or overtaking.
Have fun with your new child.
Edited by a900ss on 27/10/2009 at 22:24
|
The people who got angry and the guy who beeped his horn would probably have done the same if you'd been travelling at 28 or even 30 mph! They were probably just impatient people.
Edited by Sofa Spud on 27/10/2009 at 22:29
|
|
|
|
|
It's a limit, not a target. 25 is near enough for people to put up with for a minute or two. Their problem, not yours.
|
There are some 30 roads near me where driving at 30 would be quite wreckless. Thankfully most other drivers share the same view so you don't get impatient twits.
Generaly if there is lots of double parking and cars having to go on the other side of the road, pedistrians etc I drive at 25mph. Just let the people behind you crash into them selves.
|
|
|
I agree, their problem, sounds like it's a sensible speed for the roads you describe.
Babies are tough little things on the whole.........not had one of our own about the house for over 30 yrs but common practice was a carrycot on the back seat.....no seat belts to restrain it.
Much better now.
Ted
|
Indeed I was quite horrified when my mother told me I used to travel in the back of a Mini traveler with no rear seat belts. Mind you there was much less traffic then apparantly.
I usualy find delight in seeing brangs to the bodywork when some idiot does a dangerious over take.
|
|
|
|
|
Got a few queues behind me
If you're going so slowly that queues are forming behind you then pull over and let them pass.
|
|
In a city road there is usualy no opportunity to stop and let them pass, oh unless you stop on those zig zags and get a nice 6 points in the process.
|
|
|
|
As a child I remember being allowed to stand up in the front of convertible cars and hold on to the top of the windscreen! You often used to see kids doing that.
Edited by Sofa Spud on 27/10/2009 at 22:43
|
As a child I remember being allowed to stand up in the front of convertible cars and hold on to the top of the windscreen! You often used to see kids doing that.
my mother had an Austin Healey Sprite with a chrome boot rack. I used to sit on the back holding onto the boot rack, my head would be above the windscreen...how dangerous was that?
'ETA55C' where are you now, in British Racing Green
|
|
Or RNH64 my Dad's Zephyr 6 WP ! It had a bench front seat with a fold down armrest in the middle which was my perch for many an Edinburgh to SE England run. No belts of course.
Edited by Humph Backbridge on 27/10/2009 at 22:51
|
|
|
|
don't forget that 25mph on your speedo is probably about 22 or 23 mph in reality
difficult one to answer without more facts and knowledge of the road
generally i get quite fed up with the 28 or 29 mph people who in reality are doing 25 or 26 mph... on the roads where the vision is good and the hazards aren't great (in other words it might well have been a 40mph limit in the past)....whereas there are some roads where 25 mph is about my limit (e.g. parked cars either side, only one lane, you can't see the pavement very well)
...oh and I know what you mean about the new child....ours is approaching 22 months now
|
Thanks for all of the responses so far.
As I mentioned the roads are not great, loads of parked cars and bends, narrows roads, so squeezing past each other is very common, lots of pedestrians to look out for (lots of kids in this area too), and lots of people driving too fast.
As was mentioned above, pulling in to let queues go is really not an option.
The conundrum is that, on clearer roads, I would be happy to drive at 30 and there would be room to overtake me anyway. But as the roads get narrower and busier, there are more hazards, so driving more slowly feels more appropriate, but then you are potentially holding more people up who can't overtake you. I would say that very many people around here drive well over 30, but on the other hand I have seen the results of a couple of pretty bad smashes recently.
I would say that I normally do about 28 (according to the speedo, as WP points out that is likley 26), so I am about 2-3 mph slower.
|
|
When I see people driving slowly than that which is reasonable for the conditions, within the speed limit and limitations of the vehicle I find it frightfully selfish and often let them know, as I would selfish people who affect others in any situation.
|
>>When I see people driving slowly than that which is reasonable for the conditions, within the speed limit and limitations of the vehicle I find it frightfully selfish and often let them know,
Oh I do hope you're following me one day when you do this...why don't you see if you can get a motorcycle escort, you're clearly very important?
|
|
|
|
|
It all depends on the circs. As others have said, 25mph could be deemed homicidally fast in some roads. On the other hand, wide open roads could be safe (but still illegal) at faster speeds.
If you don't feel comfortable going faster, then don't go faster; but in consideration of others, do allow them to pass if you have a queue behind you. Angry drivers are often bad drivers, so letting them past is the best thing to do.
|
Also, you know the roads in question, maybe less patient drivers don't.
I regularly drive through our suburb at less than the 30 limit because I know the phases of the traffic lights very well nd see no point in rushing up to them when I know they're going to be on red for another few minutes. I also know the black spots where it's a popular place for pedestrians to walk out. It's normally very busy all day. You have to drive to suit the conditions as you find them....local knowledge is very useful.
Ted
|
If it's safe to drive at 30 in a 30, then do so. Nothing annoys me more than a dawdler who gets in everyones way and keeps dabbing on his brakes every few seconds to maintain his snail like progress and then decides to brake and slow down for the speed camera when he's not actually going fast enough to trigger it in the first place!
If you're starting to get a build up of traffic behind you (yes, that's what your rear view mirror is for) then do the decent thing and pull over so that us people behind who want to progress on, can do so.
Edited by Dynamic Dave on 28/10/2009 at 01:07
|
I am guilty of that but I would rather slow down to a speed I know I am well under rather than risk being flashed. So I will aproach a speed camera at about 27-28 but the cameras are usualy in places where that sort of speed is ideal anyway.
There is a big difference between country and city roads too. On city roads you only have to stop for that red light 100 yards ahead anyway so why it does it matter if the merc behind wants to go faster he still has to stop.
|
|
Heavens how sleepy this thread has made me feel. Just as well given the hour.
|
Consider getting a huge
"baby on board" sign
Then one can apparently drive anyway one likes
and all the other drivers come over all lovey-dovey
honest
M
|
|
|
|
My council is reducing the speed limit to 20 mph in all residential areas and putting in inverted potholes. They cant be good for babies necks, or my back. So will 15 in a 20 be reasonable?
Edited by Old Navy on 28/10/2009 at 08:37
|
|
|
|
|
If you're starting to get a build up of traffic behind you (yes, that's what your rear view mirror is for) then do the decent thing
Yes. Here's your bottle of whisky, here's your service revolver, I'll leave you to it.
Try to make decent provision for the nipper first though, won't you?
|
|
|
|
|
one guy in a beat up old merc whowas tailgating and beeping his horn (before overtaking be on the brow of a hill at well over 30) but generally OK.
beat up old Merc - always a sign of a careful driver.
One of the often quoted mottos of safe offroad driving is - ?As Slow As Possible, As Fast As Necessary"
Although it is normal to drive up to the speed limit to avoid frustration to other road users, who will react by irrationally by crazy overtaking.
|
|
|
You should drive according to the road conditions.
As others have said,30 in a maximum,not a target.If the roads are narrow,with lots of parked cars,then 25 or less may well be an appropriate speed,but that is for you to decide at any given time.
If others are impatient,that is their problem.In urban settings going at a few miles an other below the 30 limit is not going to make much differenc to anyone's journey.
I find a lot of people use the speed limits as a target,and get very impatient of anyone doing a mile or two under it.That is their problem,their blood pressure will suffer.
|
I find a lot of people use the speed limits as a target and get very impatient of anyone doing a mile or two under it.That is their problem their blood pressure will suffer.
That's because many roads have inappropriate limits set on them nowadays. All over the country there are roads that used to have a National Speed limit, then it went to 40mph, now it's 30mph....so someone doing 25mph on one of those is going to wind everyone up.
Conversely, the narrow road, on the school route, parked cars either side, etc
....30mph would probably be too fast, so you should exercise restraint.
it's all about drivers THINKING and making the appropriate decision for the circumstances.
On the former road, 35mph on your clock, 32 mph in reality, what's wrong with that? (usually)....
Edited by Westpig on 28/10/2009 at 11:48
|
it's all about drivers THINKING and making the appropriate decision for the circumstances.
And therein lies the problem, too large a percentage can't even think (work out?) an appropraite speed now.... hence speed limits... I really don't know where you are coming from, WP, it is plainly obvious that far too large a number of current drivers would drive at inappropriate speeds if limits were done away with, just stand by any town or village street if you need the evidence where they can't even drive appropriately with existing limits... so what do you propose?
|
|
Not a proposal, but if the anti speed/environmental nutters have their way we will all end up with speed limiters fitted to our cars, as busses and goods vehicles have.
|
Was your driving dangerous when you were going at normal speed?
If not, where is the need to slow down just because you have a (well restrained) nipper on board.
|
|
|
|
b308,
Endless lowering of speed limits only affects those that are (mostly) law abiding and bother to obey them. So you crab along on roads that in the past would have had a faster traffic flow, stuck behind people who stick to the limit on their speedos, like glue, ignoring most other things going on around them.
I'm not advocating a 'free for all' and never have done. There are many times when the limits set are most necessary.
I think speed limits should be set more sensibly. Lower as well as higher.
|
>>it is plainly obvious that far too large a number of current drivers would drive at inappropriate speeds if limits were done away with
I think that is flawed logic.
I go a little further than WP, in that I would like to see some roads genuinely de-restricted. In this way, drivers would begin to re-learn the skills of looking at the road, at traffic levels, at weather conditions, at levels of building development, etc, and using these inputs decide upon a safe speed themselves. This now all to vestigial skill would then enable them to decide which urban roads need to be traversed at 25 mph instead of blind observance of the 30mph limit.
Yes, there would be some spectacular accidents at first, but;
a) there are sadly spectacular accidents now
b) in the long run, this would lead to a reduction in accidents when people begin to take proper responsibility for their actions rather than being able to say "I wasn't speeding"
In essence, our disagreement is political - B308 is for state control and the enfeeblement of individual thought, and I'm for freedom of the individual accompanied by clarity of where the responsibility lies.
|
|
NC's post more eloquently sums up my view.
|
NC, I have no issue with the principle of variable/derestricted limits... but I don't have WP's confidence in our fellow drivers or NC's wish for a period of legalised deaths whilst they all sort themselves out if it was introduced...
Quite honestly I think that you are both in cloud cuckoo land, but you are entitled to your opinion! ;-)
Edited by b308 on 28/10/2009 at 13:14
|
Quite honestly I think that you are both in cloud cuckoo land but you are entitled to your opinion! ;-)
Ditto....;-)
I can't remember b308, but have you ever done any advanced driver training. It's the principle of taking more note of your surroundings, being more aware of what's going on, noting the hazards or potential hazards before they're a problem....not just blindly following a pre-determined speed limit....and of course when the hazards aren't great 'grabbing a bit more on occasions'.
If everyone had no choice but to learn a bit of that, then they'd be better, more aware drivers. If we continuously think for them and dumb everything down, they'll get worse.
|
|
|
>>NC's wish for a period of legalised deaths
Where did I write anything like that?
Yes, there would be a period of re-adjustment, but, after that, I think the better, more aware driving mentioned by WP will actually reduce death statistics.
I could equally ask why do we tolerate B308's desire for a larger total number of deaths in the long term?
|
WP, I have been on a Police course so have some idea about advanced driving...
NC, re deaths, you have admitted yourself that in the short term (and thats only if everyone is able to adjust) there will be more accidents, which will, be default, increase deaths, if you don't agree with that I'd love to know how you work out that it doesn't...
Re "do we tolerate B308's desire for a larger total number of deaths in the long term"... propor Policed current speed limits would not do that...
I'm all for better driving and I try to drive resposibily myself, but to get everyone to do that all of the time I'd suggest is a non-starter... whilst I don't agree with many current limits I feel that suggesting that it would be possible for us to derestrict/raise limits and expect injuries and deaths not to rise is naive in the extreme... as to whether they would eventually go down, that would depend entirely on how any such system is policed, I suspect that it would be far more difficult to police which would increase casualties...
As to training everyone and then ensuring that they abide by what they've learnt... great idea... how?
Edited by b308 on 28/10/2009 at 13:55
|
Yes, short term, there would be more accidents, which would be more than balanced by a longer term reduction.
Yes, de-restriction on its own would not work, it would have to accompany a shift towards people taking more responsibility for themselves. Sadly, the trend over the last decade or so has been in the opposite direction.
>>that would depend entirely on how any such system is policed
No. The change has to happen in the attitudes of individual drivers.
>>As to training everyone
The last thing we need is training.
Something more subtle altogether is needed.... education!
|
Training, education, showing people new ways... all the same thing, just different words... by all means play with the words, but the end result is the same, you need people to think differently and to do that you need to train/educate/show/teach them why they should and how...
My last post was done too quickly and just to clarify...
Yes, I am for less restrictions on speed
Yes I am for more "education/training" (call it what you will)...
I honestly feel that you can't introduce the former without having completed the latter...
Do I think its a good goal? Yes!
Do I think its a realistic goal? No!
Do I think that it would mean less State Control going down that route? No... and the reason is that for it to work we would need to ensure that the roads are policed much stronger than the current system to ensure that people do not "get carried away" with the new regulations, that people who shouldn't be driving don't drive, etc... and thats why I don't think its a realistic goal... you are expecting 15/20m drivers to all behave themselves all of the time, I just can't see that happenning... unless Big Brother was in charge...
Continual reduction of limits is, I agree, dumbing down, but until we get a grip on current illegal driving by more presence of the "authorities" on the roads and punishments that are actually enforced after they've been handed out I think its CC land to suggest that it would be a good idea to start de-restricting...
I would however welcome a full review of all current limits to see if they are realistic and changes made if required...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
