Pages: 1 2 3 4 … 6

 

Poll

Do you consider speeding to be reckless driving?

Yes55%55% - 52
No32%32% - 30
Not sure11%11% - 11
Total: 93
2008-05-25 11:05:57
Bell
Frosties > Cornflakes
+362|6972|UK

IG-Calibre wrote:

the sooner people realise it's all about giving themselves time to react to the unexpected, and not about their competency to drive a vehicle at 70mph through a residential area thanks to their unrestricted ego, the less an issue speed limits become. I see sooooo many dangerous drivers on the roads every day it really pisses me off, the fuckers shouldn't be allowed behind the wheel of a go-cart let alone given the licence to drive a car.
Good point, though I would sort of support a 'fast lane' on the highways.  Though that said, some moron would probably loose control and spin off onto the slower lanes and, end of pilot scheme.

Martyn
2008-05-25 11:07:26
Snake
Missing, Presumed Dead
+1,046|6989|England

First of all, how many people replying have actually passed their test/tests to be able to drive?

Unless you are a complete, utter, goody-too-shoes, EVERYBODY will break the speedlimit at some point during their life. It is a fact, and there is no getting away from it. For all you younger people who havent passed yet, you might as well stay out because you know only the "outside story".
Technically, doing 31 in a 30 in breaking the limit...so anybody who ever says that they have never been speeding is lying. So tell me why it is then, that you can do 33 in a 30 and not get flashed eh?
They allow the speed + ~5% (varies...motorways, its 84 at the most) - that is, unless you have a cop who is in a real bad mood. But hey, even static speedcameras allow it, so if you are allowed over to an extent...technically, you are speeding and can get away with it - is that reckless driving?


Wana keep up with the car in front? Peer pressure from the driver behind you? Late for work? Traffic buildup has caused you to be late for something? A friend is trying to race you? Wana get home to see your favourite TV show?
They are all valid reasons for why people speed. And everyone will sucomb to at least one of those during their driving life. I know, Ive been caught, doing 38 in a 30. I did a special 3 hour course on the effects of speeding, etc (and got no penalty points or fine: except a £60 admin fee) and I know the results of speeding. Fact is, everyone does it, otherwise you wouldnt have people getting caught left, right and centre.

And at that speed course, all of those above reasons were ones that people came up with. I got caught because I was late for a meeting at a clients office in a part of a town I had never been in: and didnt know where the cameras were. And thats half of it: local people know where they are, and so will almost never get caught. Fair?

In fact, one of the people on that course got caught doing 39 in a 30. Fair enough: but he couldnt avoid it. He was driving a recovery truck that, to get into third gear, needs to be going more than 40mph...but if he keeps it in second for too long, the engine wears out very quick and can possibly explode.
Now tell me, was he driving recklessly or trying to stop himself from being blown up?

(story might vary a lil...but that was the jist of it)

Speeding is not reckless driving (providing it is not insanely over the limit). Reckless driving is:
  • Drink-driving, or under the influence of drugs
  • Driving on the pavement (or sidewalk for you guys on the other side of the pond )
  • Driving at insane speeds on any kind of road
  • Driving whilst extremely tired
  • Overtaking in stupid areas (apex of a hill, single-lane country roads, areas where theres chevrons in the middle, etc)
  • Driving without lights at night-time
  • Driving the wrong way along a 1-way system
  • Driving on the other side of the road (hear about that a lot for motorways )
  • Driving at speeds to try and beat speedcameras (ties in with #4) - you need to be going at least 190mph + to beat them (Top Gear...tried and tested )




Going 120mph on a road that is restricted to 60mph is reckless. Going 45 in a 40 is not - unless its a built up area, in which case, that is down to your judgement. On a deserted street, fine. When theres hundreds of pedestrians around: yes.
Generally, people do 10mph over the limit anyway. If they were to track every car driver in the country, I can safely say that 80%-90% of drivers will get done for speeding. Not reckless driving, but speeding.
2008-05-25 12:54:27
RAIMIUS
You with the face!
+244|7138|US

Snake wrote:

A friend is trying to race you?...
They are all valid reasons for why people speed.
Glad I live on this side of the pond!

...and NO, illegal street racing is NOT a valid reason to speed.

I agree with the earlier post that said it is based on conditions.  I have gone over the limit on deserted roads which were in excellent condition and had extremely good sight lines.  I was in a hurry and knew my capabilities and reaction times, along with the conditions of my car and the road.  Was it the best idea?  No, probably not.  Did it work out? Yes.

Last edited by RAIMIUS (2008-05-25 12:57:26)

2008-05-25 13:20:40
kylef
Gone
+1,352|6916|N. Ireland
It depends what you classify as speeding. If you are simply talking about going an extra 10-20mph in a busy zone, where your safety deterioration percentage is very little - then I don't see as reckless. If on the other hand you are talking about doing 70mph in a 30mph zone, then yeah - that's just reckless and moronic.

There is a main road here in Northern Ireland leading from Moneyreagh to Belfast city centre. It's a 4 lane 30mph road in which everyone does 45mph. Rightfully, the police should stop everyone of the hundreds of cars that drive up and down and give them all speeding fines and tickets. However, if you are doing 45mph in the evening when there are little cars - you'll get pulled over, given a speeding ticket (penalty points) and probably a fine too.

Both my brothers have points on their license of speeding. One doing 70 on the motorway (national motorway speedlimit) when he was on his R plates - restricted to 45mph. It was more dangerous to do 45mph than it was to do 70mph because motorway traffic is very hazardous here. My other brother, doing 50 in a 30 zone of the widest two lane road you'll have ever seen, at 3AM, no other cars, simply in an attempt to get home and get some sleep as soon as possible. Both should not have been given tickets and/or fines - but they both did.

I don't consider it, under many circumstances, to be reckless driving at all. The law over here for driving is very screwed up, and needs changed. But reform is not to be seen.
2008-05-25 13:24:16
God Save the Queen
Banned
+628|6766|tropical regions of london

dan673 wrote:

God Save the Queen wrote:

dan673 wrote:


I'm saying if you need to get to work, and you have a major presentation to make, which would define you keep/losing your job, and you needed to speed, would you consider yourself to be driving recklessly because your speeding, or not recklessly because you have a matter that requires you to speed.
its your fault youre late, not the your job's or the posted speed limits.
So you're saying that you do consider it to be reckless driving if you needed to get to work?
if you cant leave your home at a responsible time, then you dont deserve the job.
2008-05-25 13:29:08
SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|6553|North Tonawanda, NY

Turquoise wrote:

Speed limits in residential areas are usually 25.  Regular in-town roads range from 35 to 45.  Highways are usually between 55 and 65, but 70 is the highest I've seen.
Where I live, residential speed limits are 30, and for 'major' roads in that immediate area, it might be 35.  For a large road that is not going through an area where people live directly on the street, it can be 40-45.  In rural areas, it can be 50-55.  The interstate system around here is 55 in the busy areas, and 65 elsewhere.

That being said, when I drive to visit my parents, I set the cruise control to 70-73 in a 65 zone.  In the 55 zones, I drive ~65.  I have yet to get pulled over for speeding, and I am still passed by a large number of people on the interstate.  In school zones, residential areas, etc..., I usually don't speed and I try to maintain the speed limit within a few percent error.

To answer the OP, it really depends on the situation.  If someone drives 60 down a residential side street, then yes, that would be reckless.  But, the speed by itself is not always reckless.  I am more leery of people who drive the speed limit, but can't maintain their lane than people who drive 10 over the limit, but do so responsibly (signal, maintain lane, etc...).

Last edited by SenorToenails (2008-05-25 13:32:10)

2008-05-25 13:29:44
dan673
Member
+46|6406

God Save the Queen wrote:

dan673 wrote:

God Save the Queen wrote:

its your fault youre late, not the your job's or the posted speed limits.
So you're saying that you do consider it to be reckless driving if you needed to get to work?
if you cant leave your home at a responsible time, then you dont deserve the job.
You continually fail to understand the point that I am trying to make. I'm going to try this again, let's say you had massive diarrhea when you woke up to get to work, couldn't get off the toilet in time, which caused you to be late, and had to speed to get to work. Now, do you consider it to be reckless driving if you needed to speed to get to work?

Last edited by dan673 (2008-05-25 13:30:08)

2008-05-25 13:32:07
kylef
Gone
+1,352|6916|N. Ireland
dan - my answer to that would be another question: how fast would you be going?
2008-05-25 13:36:13
SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|6553|North Tonawanda, NY

dan673 wrote:

You continually fail to understand the point that I am trying to make. I'm going to try this again, let's say you had massive diarrhea when you woke up to get to work, couldn't get off the toilet in time, which caused you to be late, and had to speed to get to work. Now, do you consider it to be reckless driving if you needed to speed to get to work?
It depends on whether or not you are cutting people off, etc...  The speed at which you are driving is only part of the 'reckless driving' picture.
2008-05-25 13:36:34
God Save the Queen
Banned
+628|6766|tropical regions of london

dan673 wrote:

God Save the Queen wrote:

dan673 wrote:


So you're saying that you do consider it to be reckless driving if you needed to get to work?
if you cant leave your home at a responsible time, then you dont deserve the job.
You continually fail to understand the point that I am trying to make. I'm going to try this again, let's say you had massive diarrhea when you woke up to get to work, couldn't get off the toilet in time, which caused you to be late, and had to speed to get to work. Now, do you consider it to be reckless driving if you needed to speed to get to work?
I understand your point.  You dont seem to understand mine.   The fact that you have bowel problems is not your jobs problem or the laws.  You call in sick or you look for another job.
2008-05-25 13:45:03
dan673
Member
+46|6406

kylef wrote:

dan - my answer to that would be another question: how fast would you be going?
Not quite important to my question, but nothing over 100mph.

God Save the Queen wrote:

dan673 wrote:

God Save the Queen wrote:


if you cant leave your home at a responsible time, then you dont deserve the job.
You continually fail to understand the point that I am trying to make. I'm going to try this again, let's say you had massive diarrhea when you woke up to get to work, couldn't get off the toilet in time, which caused you to be late, and had to speed to get to work. Now, do you consider it to be reckless driving if you needed to speed to get to work?
I understand your point.  You dont seem to understand mine.   The fact that you have bowel problems is not your jobs problem or the laws.  You call in sick or you look for another job.
I understood your point from your first reply, however, I'm not interested in your point. I'm interested in you understanding my point. You're avoiding to answer my question. Regardless of whether its your fault that you had bowel problems, regardless of whether the earth split in two between you an your car, forcing you to find your ladder to use to cross over the gap to get to you car, regardless of whether a vital road was closed and you had to take a massive, time wasting detour, regardless of whether you got a flat tire and had to change it, do you consider it reckless driving that you had to speed to get to work on time.
2008-05-25 13:47:41
kylef
Gone
+1,352|6916|N. Ireland
It really varies. If it is excess of even 25% it can be lethal driving, but a 10% over the speed limit isn't going to kill you. It depends what the speed limit is on the road, what the traffic is doing (speed wise) and how fast you are going.
2008-05-25 13:49:56
God Save the Queen
Banned
+628|6766|tropical regions of london

dan673 wrote:

kylef wrote:

dan - my answer to that would be another question: how fast would you be going?
Not quite important to my question, but nothing over 100mph.

God Save the Queen wrote:

dan673 wrote:


You continually fail to understand the point that I am trying to make. I'm going to try this again, let's say you had massive diarrhea when you woke up to get to work, couldn't get off the toilet in time, which caused you to be late, and had to speed to get to work. Now, do you consider it to be reckless driving if you needed to speed to get to work?
I understand your point.  You dont seem to understand mine.   The fact that you have bowel problems is not your jobs problem or the laws.  You call in sick or you look for another job.
I understood your point from your first reply, however, I'm not interested in your point. I'm interested in you understanding my point. You're avoiding to answer my question. Regardless of whether its your fault that you had bowel problems, regardless of whether the earth split in two between you an your car, forcing you to find your ladder to use to cross over the gap to get to you car, regardless of whether a vital road was closed and you had to take a massive, time wasting detour, regardless of whether you got a flat tire and had to change it, do you consider it reckless driving that you had to speed to get to work on time.
and I said yes in my first point.  I understand your stupid  "the worlds not fair so im entitled to break the rules a little bit" point of view and I think its wrong.  Your frustration stems from me not agreeing with you.
2008-05-25 13:51:16
Jenspm
penis
+1,716|7155|St. Andrews / Oslo

Drunk Driving: Reckless
Speeding and swerving recklesly between lanes: Reckless
Speeding: OK.



I'm all for speeding, get's me quicker from point A to B.
https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/26774/flickricon.png https://twitter.com/phoenix/favicon.ico
2008-05-25 13:56:04
dan673
Member
+46|6406

God Save the Queen wrote:

dan673 wrote:

kylef wrote:

dan - my answer to that would be another question: how fast would you be going?
Not quite important to my question, but nothing over 100mph.

God Save the Queen wrote:

I understand your point.  You dont seem to understand mine.   The fact that you have bowel problems is not your jobs problem or the laws.  You call in sick or you look for another job.
I understood your point from your first reply, however, I'm not interested in your point. I'm interested in you understanding my point. You're avoiding to answer my question. Regardless of whether its your fault that you had bowel problems, regardless of whether the earth split in two between you an your car, forcing you to find your ladder to use to cross over the gap to get to you car, regardless of whether a vital road was closed and you had to take a massive, time wasting detour, regardless of whether you got a flat tire and had to change it, do you consider it reckless driving that you had to speed to get to work on time.
and I said yes in my first point.  I understand your stupid  "the worlds not fair so im entitled to break the rules a little bit" point of view and I think its wrong.  Your frustration stems from me not agreeing with you.
Your first reply to my question:

God Save the Queen wrote:

dan673 wrote:

God Save the Queen wrote:

law is the law
I'm saying if you need to get to work, and you have a major presentation to make, which would define you keep/losing your job, and you needed to speed, would you consider yourself to be driving recklessly because your speeding, or not recklessly because you have a matter that requires you to speed.
its your fault youre late, not the your job's or the posted speed limits.
So no, you did not answer my question. All you kept doing was derailing the Q&A process by bringing up the person's own faults. I'm not frustrated either. I'm calmly asking you, despite your handicapped version of answering my question, if it is reckless or not. Thank you for finally answering my question (8 posts later).

Last edited by dan673 (2008-05-25 13:56:47)

2008-05-25 13:56:22
^*AlphA*^
F*ckers
+3,135|7161|The Hague, Netherlands

Depends

Traffic situation, weather etc...

I drive 10km/h too fast most of the time (but that's for work, time pressure etc, needing to be on spot A between ..:... / ..:.. then point B between ..:.. / ..:.. etc)

people who drive way too fast in urban areas: yes.
https://bf3s.com/sigs/36eac2cb6af70a43508fd8d1c93d3201f4e23435.png
2008-05-25 14:19:45
Sorcerer0513
Member
+18|6965|Outer Space

God Save the Queen wrote:

I think breaking the law is reckless.
Is it? I know exactly what I'm doing when I'm speeding. I know that if I get caught, I'll have to pay the penalty. I know that if I hit someone that I'll be thinking for the rest of my life if it could have been different was I not speeding.

I look at my surroundings, and decide should I speed or not. Are there people walking along the road? Is there a spot that I have to pass where children may suddenly run out in front of my car? What time of day is it, are people just leaving for work, or returning? Is it the full moon? Is it more dangerous not to speed?

So, is that really reckless, as per the definition of the word?
2008-05-25 14:34:31
mikkel
Member
+383|7024

dan673 wrote:

Many times, it is responsible people who need to speed if they are in a rush.
That's self-contradictory. If you're doing 90 MPH in a 65 MPH zone, you're an irresponsible person. Those rules aren't just there for your personal safety - they're there for the safety of the other people on the road.
2008-05-25 14:52:10
UUD40
Member
+8|6795|San Diego, CA
Depends on a few things, like the driving condition, driver, vehicle, etc.
2008-05-25 14:53:07
mtb0minime
minimember
+2,418|7078

Going 5-10 mph over and adjusting to the traffic is not reckless driving. But going much higher speeds and driving unnecessarily fast is reckless driving.
2008-05-25 15:00:47
Snake
Missing, Presumed Dead
+1,046|6989|England

RAIMIUS wrote:

Snake wrote:

A friend is trying to race you?...
They are all valid reasons for why people speed.
Glad I live on this side of the pond!

...and NO, illegal street racing is NOT a valid reason to speed.
No, "illegal steet racing" is NOT a valid reason to speed, but it is a valid reason WHY (some) people speed.
But, I meant it where two of you are in seperate cars driving somewhere, so you obviously put your foot down a lil to get a better start over them. Kinda like sitting at a set of lights and revving your engine against the Ferrari sat next to you. (lol)

Going back to the speeding course I went on, lets look at it this way:

If you hit someone at:
  • 20mph: the person being hit has an 80% chance of surviving
  • 30mph: the person being hit has a 60% chance of surviving
  • 40mph: the person being hit has a 30% chance of surviving


Shocking, no? So even at 20mph, which is the slowest speed in built up areas, there is still a 1 in 5 chance that the person will die.


So yes, illegal street racing is not good. Speeding in built up areas is for twats, but for open country roads, I see no problem with an additional 5-15mph providing the conditions are good (i.e. not fog, high winds, snow, etc), the views are open and clear, etc.
Hell, I drive on those roads everyday to work and back, 60mph is the national speed limit along there, Ive been up to 100 on the straights (that was overtaking in my MR2 though ). Not proud of it, and I was shocked at my acceleration...that Ive never done it since
I know people who have been 130 on the motorways...that is a shit-hot, done-up like crazy Impreza though. That was insane, and reckless IMO.

Despite facts, figures and all the rest of it...people will speed so long as we can afford petrol to go in our cars. Its personal judgement as to how fast you think you can go. 5mph here or there isnt going to do much.

Last edited by Snake (2008-05-25 15:04:21)

2008-05-25 15:04:26
Raga86
Member
+6|6908
While driving in urban areas, speeding is reckless. While driving on motorways where there are barriers between the opposing traffic and yourself, I dont see a problem more than "one should not break the law".

Take a look at this, small changes in speed have drastic outcomes when it comes to pedestrian fatalities.

http://sggoodri.home.mindspring.com/sid … dKills.htm

His source: (the discussion part is the most interesting one, found at page 50)

http://casr.adelaide.edu.au/pedspeed/PEDSPEED.PDF

This of course also applies to any car crash, keeping the speed limits limit damage done and accidents can be avoided etc. So based on this, speeding in urban areas is reckless.

Last edited by Raga86 (2008-05-25 15:06:40)

2008-05-25 15:09:12
Snake
Missing, Presumed Dead
+1,046|6989|England

Aye, thats basically it. It varies slightly depending on the survey (and country, by the looks of it).
It also depends on age. The smaller the person, the more times they actually hit the car (Ill see if I can find the video).

Of course, other things affect those figures. Pop-up lights (now banned) effectively impale people, ditto with figurines, hence why the Rolls Royce/Jag figures are now banned.
2008-05-25 15:10:21
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|7004|SE London

Snake wrote:

Shocking, no? So even at 20mph, which is the slowest speed in built up areas, there is still a 1 in 5 chance that the person will die.
That's the speed at which you hit them, not the speed you were going at. It's very rare to hit someone at full speed, you will almost always have some opportunity to brake, knocking 5-10mph off your speed.


As most people seem to be agreeing on here, it's all about the road conditions. There are many instances when driving at over 100 is fine (almost empty motorways). There are many instances when driving at the speed limit is positively dangerous (narrow country roads with 60 limits being a great example). Speeding excessively in town is obviously reckless and dangerous. Although in all instances the car you drive does make a huge difference.
2008-05-25 15:13:23
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|7004|SE London

Raga86 wrote:

While driving in urban areas, speeding is reckless. While driving on motorways where there are barriers between the opposing traffic and yourself, I dont see a problem more than "one should not break the law".
The problem is with closing times. It is not immediately obvious how fast other cars are going when you check your mirrors, so the chances of someone pulling out in front of you and you going into the back of them are quite high if you speed excessively on a motorway where the traffic density is above a certain level.

 

Pages: 1 2 3 4 … 6

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard