To prevent being done for speeding

[Kos]

Can anybody tell me what is the minimum speed you can drive at with out getting done for causing a hazard? I am thinking of protesting at these ridiculous speed restrictions by doing just what they are intended to do and to drive round at the lowest speed possible and seeing how many cops/other drivers I can annoy without getting done for it 

[Loosehead]

Mostly there is not an actual minimum per se. You can be prosecuted for not keeping up with the prevalent speed of the road at the time. So if you are going 10 when every one else is doing 30 then in theory you can get nicked. There are some places where there is a minimum speed limit, the sign is blue, circular with the minimum limit in white.

[JudgeJ]

If you deliberately drive in a manner which causes a hazard to other road users you are likely to be prosecuted.

The Road Traffic Act, 1988, Part 1, Section 3 refers: “If a person drives a motor vehicle on a road without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road, he is guilty of an offence.”

No “minimum speed” is cited in the law and it is up to the courts to judge the situation based on evidence provided. Driving in the manner you describe would almost certainly result in a conviction.

On a wider note, the speed limits, like them or not, are provided for a purpose. They are not an optional feature which one can adopt when it is convenient or if it does not upset you too much. The restrictions are not intended to compel people to drive around as slowly as possible as you suggest. They are intended to prevent people driving at higher speeds than those to which the type of road is suited.

It will come as a culture shock initially, but you will eventually find your driving life is a lot less stressful if you stick to the limits.

Your attitude that you will try to annoy as many other drivers as possible (whether you get "done" for it or not)by your behaviour on the road, frankly, stinks. The roads are hazardous enough as it is without people making them deliberately more so. You have to be grown up to drive a motor vehicle - that's whay you're not allowed to do so until you are 17.

[Kos]

Oh well I guess I'll stick to photographing drivers on mobile phones and reporting them to their bosses then.

[JudgeJ]

So long as you are not driving (which includes being stationary, but in control of your vehicle with the engine running) whilst taking the pictures!

[Kos]

Thats not illegal as well is it?

[ursula62]

If you have the keys in the ignition then you are considered in control of the vehicle, whether or not the engine is running at the time. I know this because a friend got done for being drunk in charge when he was snoozing in his car sobering up before driving home.  

[Marc J]

Hang on - if the police are able to prosecute drivers who are driving too slowly, why do we have these "go slow" protests for things like fuel prices etc...if these are illegal surely they would be stopped?

[Chessman]

On the legal side, Motorways have a minimum speed, but where there is only a maximum,eg, 30 or 40 mph, then youcan go at whatever speed you wish, upto the maximum, but of course, sensible driving also comes into it. Loosehead has covered it very well.

[ursula62]

Chessman we had a debate about minimum speeds a few weeks back on AB and were told that the minimum speed of 30mph on motorways is an urban myth put about by some police officers!

[BillyNoMates]

Just to clarify one point - simply having the keys in the ignition does not define that you are or not in charge of a vehicle. It is a very grey and complicated area.

[stevie21]

Do you honestly believe that you'll achieve anything worthwhile in driving at a speed other than the advertised limit?

What makes you say that the speed restrictions are ridiculous?

[Kos]

Not sure where it is, but 40mph on a dual carriageway as straight as a Roman road does not seem a reasonable speed limit to me!

I know its been menitoned on AB before, but just to re-iterate, the current speed limits were set a long time ago when cars were nowhere near as technical as they are today. Driving at slow speeds can cause just as many accidents as speeding, mainly due to frustrated drivers taking risks to pass slower cars.

[brachiopod]

Marc J, the fuel protesters were threatened with arrest.

In this article from the time of the protests, it says; 
"Police had also used the Public Order Act on Friday morning to instruct drivers not to drop their speed below 40mph and to drive only on the inside lane, warning those flouting the conditions would be prosecuted."

How you would actually stop and arrest a driver for flouting this order without creating even more congestion and chaos escapes me. So it seems common sense and discretion by the police allowed the protesters to complete their journey despite, at times, blocking all lanes and dropping below 40mph.

A sensible approach, methinks.

[JudgeJ]

Yes, Kos, most cars have definitely improved technically since some of the speed limits were introduced. However, the volume of traffic on the road is now many times higher than it was then.

But the most important thing is the attitude and behaviour of some drivers. Many drivers already drive regularly at 90mph + on motorways, sometimes in quite appalling weather and/or traffic conditions. If the 70mph speed limit was raised to, say, 80mph, these idiots would then travel regularly at 100+.

You have to bear in mind, Kos, that not everybody is as skilled a driver as you obviously are and the limits are there to protect those less fortunate than you who would still like to drive around in relative safety.

The "Roman Road" that you mention probably has side roads joining it, with the possibility that local traffic may be turning into your path. It takes (even you) twice as far to stop from 60mph as it does from 40mph.

Finally, as you correctly say, drivers taking unnecessary risks in attempts to pass slower moving traffic cause accidents. It is not the slower moving traffic that is the cause. Drink-driving used to be socially accepted until fairly recently. Few would now argue that it is OK to get plastered and then drive. Until speeding becomes similarly unacceptable, and people convicted of it stop seeing themselves as victims, there will continue to be large numbers of deaths and serious injuries on the roads. Hopefully, Kos, you and I will not be among the casualties.

[Gef]

Kos- cars are now much more technically advanced than many years ago. Unfortunately, as your attitude shows, drivers are just the same, if not worse.

[Kos]

Thank you Mr Holier than Thou Gef.

Don't cast aspersions if you have no evidence

[Chessman]

Ursula62, I believe that unless otherwise stated,(roadworks etc), the legal minimum on motorways is 50mph, sorry if what I wrote was misunderstood.

[Gef]

Sorry kos, but the evidence is all around me every time I go on the road - inexperienced drivers or just bad drivers driving cars which are far too powerful for their skills. By the way, I was not having a dig at your driving skills.

[stevie21]

...just your attitude ;-)

[JudgeJ]

Chessman, where do you get the idea that there is a legal minmum speed limit on motorways?

This has been discussed before on AB and it was generally agreed that there is no such thing as a blanket minimum speed limit on any British road. In places where there is minimum required (in the Dartford tunnel, for instance) it are clearly signified by a blue circular sign with the minimum speed shown in white. This restriction is then shown as finished by the sign crossed through at the end of the affected section.

There seems to be a lot of folklore built up around motoring legislation.