Discussion in 'CycleChat Cafe' started by User, 7 Sep 2007.
My instructor explained it thus (in 2000):
The speed limit is the maximum for a given stretch of road, but:
The driver has a duty to observe an appropriate speed for the conditions.
So the limit might be 70mph on road X, but if there were a thick fog a more appropriate speed would be 25mph and a driver causing an accident by driving at 69mph would not be able to say that he was guiltless as he was within the limit.
I think that you are confusing two aspects of the same crime. One is the legal aspect, as you mention, and the other is the moral aspect. You can be guilty of either or both depending on the circumstances.
When you say "the emphasis moving so much towards the legal definition of speeding these days". What do you mean?
This is what my instructor told me also. why then did i get marked down for not going at the max speed limit in my test when it was pishing down with rain and i could hardly see where i was going???
I suppose driving sensibly to conditions is not speeding?But we then have those limits set that seem unreasonable,like when passing speed cameras,so a long clear stretch of road where you may break the limit to overtake,because its still safe in your eyes, but you get snapped(mmm ulterior motive there?)but then a tortoise flat out is speeding isnt it?
I think what you are looking for is that there is a difference between 'speeding', and 'being guilty of the offence of exceeding the speed limit on a public road'.
The two are not synonymous.
In the same way that many people think that 'train tracks' and 'rails' are synonymous, they're not. A train track comprises of two rails about 1.4m apart, sleepers, ballast, any foundations necessary, etc. i.e. the whole caboodle.
'Being guilty of the offence of exceeding the speed limit on a public road' comprises of someone speeding, the act being identified, a case being constructed, it being proven, etc. - the whole caboodle.
Unfortunately, people on motoring forums will (wrongly) assume that the two are synonymous. Such assumptions are akin to the 'it's only dangerous if you actually crash' mentality.
User, who the devil is that woman in your avatar? Is it Gillian McKeith, who you've got a crush on?
because driving examiners can be bastards as there is no come back. my advice to anyone about to sit a driving test is to take the option of having your instructor sit in. he/she can't do anything other than sit and observe, but it stops examiners getting away with murder.
She's the sort of lady it would be nice to have living close to you!
Who is it then? Anneka Rice's mother?
She looks like the lady in the comedy series where the bloke was the housemaid?
anne haddy, gran from neighbours?
Can I sing the next line.......can I
Without wanting to sound obvious, my response would be 'well they would say that'.
I assume* that there is an element of law implied, i.e. it means going faster than the legal limit, rather than faster than the safe limit, but I don't go so far as to assume that it has to mean being fully guilty of the offence, i.e. if they're only not guilty because of say incorrectly posted speed limits then in my book it's still speeding.
If someone is going 60mph in an incorrectly-posted 30mph zone, then to say they are not officially guilty of an offence may be true - but to say they were 'within the limit' is factually incorrect, not just misuse of language. The limit has been set by parliament, and if signs aren't put up correctly then that doesn't mean the limit doesn't apply, it just means that people can't be (validly) prosecuted for exceeding it. As far as I'm aware, anyway...
*given that it's the motoring context, rather than the 'like a speeding bullet' context.
Separate names with a comma.