richmc

I live in the South West, Cornwall to be precise with it's aging population, our public transport infrastructure is so appalling that people who clearly shouldn't still be driving are forced to or be house bound. I see the 10mph (or more) under the limit every time I take my car out, I will overtake them when it's safe but see so many doing so on blind bends, before the brow of hills etc. I also see agricultural vehicles with strings of cars behind them, but at least most of them are aware of the fact and have the courtesy to pull into lay byes where possible. These elderly drivers are NOT driving at the speed limit as you said, do you realise that it's an offence to drive too slowly intentionally? it's called failing to make proper progress and comes under driving without due care and attention.

gaddafi

As I said, it's not something I see around here. I just see oldies driving in accordance with the limits - mostly 30 - 60 mph.

Younger drivers are a much bigger problem when it comes to causing problems as the insurance stats prove and that's reflected in premiums.

I understand ancient drivers are also disliked by insurers but they are fewer in number.

I would prefer to be held up by an OAP ditherer than t-boned at 100mph by a teenager.

I've also yet to see an OAP preoccupied with their make up or using their phone whilst trying to drive. They are also pretty good at merging in turn and not exiting motorways at the last second by crossing three lanes in 50m whilst giving you the finger.

Out of all the driving problems on the roads only a tiny proportion are down to old people driving at or below the limit.

As for the offence part, there are plenty of things I would prefer the Police to do before they worry about someone driving significantly under the limit. As you know, it's a limit not a target.

The road to my house is NSL. I would say a safe maximum for the majority of the road is 30mph.

richmc

Like for instance this?

Pensioner, 82, driving wrong way on a motorway killed himself and another driver in 100mph head-on crash | Daily Mail Online

Nottm_S2

I'm not sure a single case proves much. Licence removal is pretty rare I think, probably more so than it ought to be

When I was a kid my mates younger brother was a proper menace. Multiple big crashes, regular convictions. Makes that chap look well behaved.

Premiums for the young prove the risk, the oldies may be annoying but they kill far fewer I imagine.

gaddafi

I could raise you:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-a8179441.html

however that wouldn't be any more useful than your example of bad driving really

so I will just leave this here:

Older Drivers - Key Facts

richmc

Hardly an example of an accident, that was a deliberate criminal act that resulted in death and destruction, stealing a car stuffing it full of your "mates" speeding and joy riding around town ending up crashing into a tree is not an accident. The driver was 15 years old so would never have had a driving lesson, and 88mph in a 30mph area, if that's not enough evidence of a criminal act I don't know what is!

gaddafi

I take the point he would never have had a proper lesson

Of course, driving the wrong way up a motorway by the elderly driver you quoted was also deliberate and illegal but I doubt that driver was intending to kill anyone either.

So how about this one then?

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/t...rash-vcjq882cp

Or this one, just to demonstrate that old people don't have the monopoly on driving the wrong way down main roads (cracking video):

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotla...tland-15718599

But as I said, trading individual examples doesn't change the facts, which are that:

Younger drivers are a bigger problem than older drivers

When was the last time you:

• were tailgated at speed?
• were deliberately cut up?
• were alarmed by what you regarded as the excessive high speed of another vehicle?
• the subject of road rage?
• overtaken dangerously?

Odds are that it will have been a younger driver

I know people get wound up up by old people driving but if you are inconvenienced by one, the chances are that it will fall into a few categories:

• they are going too slowly for your liking (in everything from parking to joining a main road)
• they are more risk averse than you (examples such as not overtaking where you would, stopping at give way lines, never going through an amber, let alone a red)
• their situational awareness (straight-lining roundabouts)

A bit like (invariably young) learners really, who we all have to put up with as well. The roundabout one is a classic. I've lost count of the times I have been a passenger where the 'young' driver has been 'cut up' when it was blindingly obvious that it was unwise to be alongside the other driver on a two-lane roundabout. Who do you blame - the old person with poor situational awareness or the young(er) driver knowingly and wilfully putting themselves in a positional of potential conflict?

This is the mentality of the dashcammer - let's help conflict to happen in the interests of footage. Just about every dashcam video I see (barring the Russian variety and ones where serious criminality are involved such as chases) demonstrates poor anticipation by the dashcammer. This mentality is also shared by many younger drivers who don't want to adapt to accommodate the different standards of driving that exist on our roads. Dashcammers are also invariably at the younger end of the spectrum.

I'm not arguing because of any personal bias - just reflecting the facts. I think my mother should stop driving in the forseeable future but at 77 she is still safer than most 17 year olds. I also see pensioners who are clearly a liability but that's a different matter from just driving to the limits and generally applying a level of caution that younger drivers do not.

The problem, if there is one, sorts itself out anyway. Old people die and young people get better at driving. Then it all starts again.

s2k4tony

Interesting reading, as always. Rich, I think you need your own column for debates. And good for you to stand your ground - I'm kind of with you on this too.

Many, many years ago, I owned an mk2 XR2 (my first car actually), and I did something as stupid as the said title. This was from my digs in Kent up to the north west, averaging over ** leptons in this little tin box. And that was including stopping at Dartford Tolls to throw in my 50p in the bucket. Little wonder that when I was peeling off the m'way at the end of the journey, it blew the head gasket off the thing. It's not something to brag about, I was young and stupid in a nippy little car. Boredom gets the better of you when you're a sprog and this was also in the dead of the night, before speed cameras. One thing I won't ever forget, is that I never saw one police car in that journey. Times have changed. Or have they.
On a recent journey to Kent, in the day time, M6/M40/M25/M26, I saw one police car attending to a broken down vehicle on the M25, during the 5 hour journey. There needs to be more presence - especially about mobile phone use. For the record I wasn't speeding (awaits NOIP in the post....).

I'm surprised that the vein of this conversation has mainly focused on the driver, in his big powerful steed, sporting bin lid sized brakes and honest awareness of the road ahead allowing him to trickle over the limit. Thing is, it's not normally about the driver, it's about the pedestrian and although the conversation had shifted from this said dickhead in the A5 with his motorway exploits - you have to accept that pedestrians (and cyclists) are the real reason for the 20/30/40 limits. Not all pedestrians are smart, some are children retrieving the football or pratting about on the pavement. Kids do stupid things. Survival rates are higher at lower speeds. Just imagine that you are doing 40 in a 30, and for that brief moment that you're checking your new Raybans are looking great.... You would never be able to live with yourself. Lets say that you are doing 30, and checking Raybans etc, fiddling with the radio or whatever, and the incident happens - the chance of survival is better. No one is guilty of ever being human and making an error like this. We all, at some point, are not looking at the road ahead. We should be but can be easily distracted - taking mobile phones out of the equation. As far as I understand these limits present a chance for life for someone that is struck. And its about behaviors of those drivers that respect them, even if we could agree that the limits do seem a bit low. In these arguments, I'm always tired to read about braking being better on faster cars, quicker to react etc. Tosh. It's an excuse, always an excuse. When you have lost somebody you love dearly to a speeding driver, you will feel more emotive about it. Over the years I've been up to 9 points on my licence (clean for last 6 years), all from speeding and being an ignorant bastard to 30 limits. 2 times caught at 36 mph, one at 41mph. I deserved the points. I learnt my lesson too many times, just glad I didn't take someone out in the process.

I really didn't mean to sound in any way patronizing in that passage, no offence meant. I know that you lot on here are intelligent chaps and talk like you've swallowed a Thesaurus. Forgive me!

So I don't buy any BS about speeding being ok - a lot of performance cars are terrible to drive at 30. So blame the manufacturers then - trade it for something more dual purpose, rather than waiting for it to appreciate. Go on a track day, airfield or somewhere to enjoy the machinery. Peace!

gaddafi

Why not require manufacturers to limit car speeds to say, 80 mph? Exceptions for emergency vehicles.

But honestly, I don't disagree with the sentiment Tony. I think it is impossible to deny that speed is a multiplier/exacerbator or whatever the word is to reflect the fact that being hit at 50 is going to hurt more than being hit at 20 etc. Although of course there is no difference in the hurt if hit at 50mph or 180mph. One is kaput in that range.

And as I have said, I see speed limits as a necessary compromise on roads used by such a diverse range of drivers/other users.

I just wish the conversation could be more nuanced. For example, I'm troubled by the idea that exceeding a speed limit is inherently dangerous. If what's meant by that is that you might have an accident, well then so are cooking, walking, flying, skating, swimming and touching any electrical appliance inherently dangerous.

Returning to the subject of the thread, I cannot get too excited about the speeds involved in this stunt. I can see that at the time it was done, it would have been relatively easy to maintain that average speed without sustained periods at 150mph.

When I did my speed awareness course we were asked why we speed or were speeding at the time we were caught. My answer was that going fast is enjoyable. I had to explain that driving at 100 mph on a crowded road was not what I meant but that in the 'right' circumstances (where right meant fewer risks) it was sometimes more enjoyable to drive my car above a limit than at or below it. I also accept that if I allow my pursuit of enjoyment to override my awareness of the law, then I must accept the possible consequences. Unfortunately the campaign arguments are usually simplistic - e.g you speed so you are dangerous and a bad driver. You don't speed so you are careful and safe.

But back to compromise. We live in a world where we increasingly legislate to the lowest denominator. I can live with that and the consequences of being a maverick every now and then. I suspect most people aren't much different and we only hear the hysterics above the normal calm.

unclefester

Speed kills - isn't it such a boring mantra?

Careless driving and excessive / inappropriate speed plus a whole host of other contributing factors is what kills. I am very much with you on this. Should i get caught out whilst speeding in a safe appropriate place then like you, i'll take my slap on the wrists but will never change the view that speed in itself is a killer.

I think mobile phones should be Faraday caged by the car as soon as the engine starts and would only work if the engine is running AND the hazard lights are on and the car is stationary. Same as i think private vehicles need air detectors installed that monitor alcohol levels in breath and if they are too high ( this includes passengers ) then the car won't start. Drunk drivers / drunk passengers are a liability.

I had someone gesticulating at me the other day ( driving the S2000 ) doing 30mph but in 2nd gear waiting for the NSL, too fast they shouted. Had i been in the Aygo doing the same speed in the same gear they'd not have batted an eyelid. The perception is that roofless noisy red sports car is dangerous and must be speeding because of the noise. I like the noise, maybe they like wearing crocs and watching Love Island - two far worse crimes from my point of view.

If you really really want to offend people with perceived speed ./ danger - have a go on a motorbike. You may as well have devil horns growing from your helmet.

But as far as the original issue goes, it's a problem with social media, not speeding. Social media gives a voice to people who really don't need it and then provides them with an audience they should never have had. I didn't care what strangers did before because i knew nothing about it ( actually i still really don't care ) but now i have to read about it when people i do know post it up.