It’s all about safety!

I once nearly got taken out by an artic on the motorway..

I was flashed onto a motorway from a slip road by one artic driver - then one in another artic overtook this one and decided to pull back in - where I was.. Now tell me where the the blind spots are!

I had to accelarate hard after swerving onto the hard shoulder! If I hadn't I wouldn't be driving anymore. Oh, and I went faster than 70mph is that allowed in this situation?

I never drive by the side of a rig (if I can help it), I don't trust them - Now I don't know what type of artic you've driven/drive or how many mirrors you use, but I've been told by a ex lorry driver where the blind spots are on a standard rig - if I can't see the driver in their mirrors then they can't see me.. I've also been a passenger in a LHD rig.

Oh and by the way, the police have said that to safely overtake another vehicle then it is acceptable to reach speeds over the limit (say to 90mph) as long as you drop back down afterwards - the emphasis on safely and quickly overtaking - rather than slowely like many artic drivers at 1mph (I'm sure artic drivers wind their windows down and have a chinwag )

Livvy can say what he wants, this was roughly quoted from a trafic police officer some years ago on a tv motoring programme while showing a piece on driving safety - I don't know which one or when it was, but it was what he said.

thepits wrote: Rhys wrote: Livvy can say what he wants. Aha - a clue to livvy's identity! Not that we needed another! It seems to me that, whilst understanding what HE is trying to put forward, HE still has a very narrow view on the realities of daily motoring. Perhaps driving in a marked car changes other drivers attitudes?

A generalisation, maybe its a woman.. after all they all think they are better drivers

Rhys wrote: Oh and by the way, the police have said that to safely overtake another vehicle then it is acceptable to reach speeds over the limit (say to 90mph) as long as you drop back down afterwards

What a lot of tosh. Try using it as a defence to a speeding prosecuton & see where it gets you.

livvy wrote: Rhys wrote: Oh and by the way, the police have said that to safely overtake another vehicle then it is acceptable to reach speeds over the limit (say to 90mph) as long as you drop back down afterwards What a lot of tosh. Try using it as a defence to a speeding prosecuton & see where it gets you.

I take it that is your view and no one elses?
If this is the case why was it broadcast by a policeman on national tv?

Rhys wrote: OK another instance.. Traveling down the M1 a while ago - in the fast lane ovetaking a few cars at around 75mph, I saw a police car traveling at speed some distance behind me with two's and blues on - to clear his way I accelarated past the remaining cars to enable me to quickly and safely pull in as this was the only exit open to me, I must have touched 85mph before pulling in and slowing back down to 70. The policecar passed me at speed, and took no interest..

Bad planning, Rhys: you should have seen the cop car coming ages ago and not overtaken.

Or something.

Rhys wrote: livvy wrote: Rhys wrote: Oh and by the way, the police have said that to safely overtake another vehicle then it is acceptable to reach speeds over the limit (say to 90mph) as long as you drop back down afterwards What a lot of tosh. Try using it as a defence to a speeding prosecuton & see where it gets you. I take it that is your view and no one elses? If this is the case why was it broadcast by a policeman on national tv?

It is my view & it just so happens that it is also the view of the statute books.
There is no provision in law for you to exceed the speed limit for overtakes. Offering " a policeman once said on TV" is no defence.
In law you have to stay within the limits when completing an overtake & if it is not safe to do that, then the overtake is not safe in the first place.

Of course if you do speed in doing so, it doesn't follow that you will definitely be prosecuted for speeding if seen by Police. They can choose whether or not to prosecute, but you are leaving your fate completely in their hands. They can prosecute where they can provide evidence of your speeding & the fact you were only doing it while overtaking will not suffice as a defence.
The choice is yours ultimately, but if you decide to exceed the limit you have to be prepared for the consequences if they do decide to prosecute, because you are putting yourself & your licence on offer.

Rhys wrote: this was roughly quoted from a trafic police officer some years ago on a tv motoring programme

Was this at a time when the Police took as hard a line on speeding as they do now ?

The decision to report for prosecution is the individual officers & where you break the law in regard to speeding, that option is open to them. They are not bound by what some faceless officer said on TV once, they are bound by the law.

The only way for you to ensure you don't get prosecuted is to remain within speed limits. Anytime you wilfully or inadvertently go over them without an exemption, you render yourself liable to prosecution.








Edited by livvy

livvy wrote: I imagine with the blue lights & two tones on they were going to something that had a higher priority for them at that time.

Doughnuts, probably.

Nigel wrote: On a lot of the roads in Worcestershire ( where I do this IAM observing), a lot of nsl's have been dropped to 40 or 50 mph, which makes the subject of overtaking very difficult, then just for good measure the local road safety unit put down loads of solid doube whites !

Probably because people keep making fatal mistakes overtaking, so they design the chances to do them out. It's easier than training everyone to do it safely, especially when people don't make any effort to get enhanced training off their own backs.

spokey wrote: Interesting comparison, given that you expect hospitals to be safe places and roads to be dangerous places: The Guardian wrote: The number of deaths from infections picked up in hospital, including the so-called superbug MRSA, is four times higher than the government's official figure, campaigners claimed yesterday. The MRSA support group said that the government's tally of 5,000 deaths a year comes from statistics compiled in 1994. Their analysis of statistics from official bodies suggests that the real number of annual deaths is closer to 20,000. Half of those 20,000 deaths would be from the methicillin resistant staphylococcus aureus bacteria, or MRSA, Tony Field of the group said. The government's 1994 break-down gave 800 out of 5,000 deaths as from MRSA.

I agree woeful.

spokey wrote: The BBC wrote: The number of people dying on UK roads fell to 3,221 last year - the lowest since records began in 1926. Yet, the number of speeding fines being issued is growing, year on year, as is the number of miles travelled. So, we're driving more, breaking more speed limits, we are stubbornly refusing to better ourselves and yet fewer people are dying.

Whoaaa, that's a big jump you are making there.
Just because more people are getting fined for speeding doesn't mean that we are "breaking more speed limits" necessarily. Just because enforcement has become more effecient, seeing numbers of prosecutions rise is not evidence of more speeding just that more offences are being prosecuted.

The evidence from cameras is that "they" help reduce the instance of speeding, help reduce the severity of the margin over the limit & help reduce KSI's numbers etc. They do this whilst at the sametime prosecuting more of the people who don't change their behaviour (or change sufficiently enough) as listed above.

If your hospital figures are correct, just imagine how many of those people may have been serious injury RTA victims from speed related collisions. Who then went to hospital & got MRSA. Now of course if they hadn't been speeding & hadn't gone to hospital they wouldn't have got the MRSA. So cameras may actually be saving lives by preventing simple injury collisions not just the fatality collisions.

If you want to get a true picture of speeds relationship to collisions speak to the people best placed to have seen the evidence of what are the major contributory factors in them.
i.e. The Police officers who report serious collisions.
They'll tell you inappropraite speed plays a big part in collisions on our roads.



Edited by livvy