# 20mph Speed Limits



## martint235 (22 Sep 2011)

Just saw a piece on t'BBC about 20mph speed limits and how cyclists are campaigning to get these. Assuming the campaigns work, will cyclists actually obey the new speed limit? I can understand if a motorist feels aggrieved by a new speed limit campaigned for by cyclists who then completely ignore it which is what I think will happen. 

There's a 20mph speed limit in Greenwich Park that is almost entirely ignored by cyclists, in fact the only traffic I've ever seen sticking to 20mph are black cabs, that's a first. Maybe a 20mph sign creates some kind of freakish parallel universe


----------



## lit (22 Sep 2011)

The speed limit's will be for cars, buses, motorbikes etc. You can't limit the speed of a bicycle on the public highway, it's like telling pedestrians to walk slowly.


----------



## ClichéGuevara (22 Sep 2011)

lit said:


> The speed limit's will be for cars, buses, motorbikes etc. You can't limit the speed of a bicycle on the public highway, it's like telling pedestrians to walk slowly.



I think I'm right in saying we in Hull have more 20mph roads than anywhere else in the country. They're okay in principal, but the reality is there's no way of enforcing it, so the solution has been to provide us with more speed humps than anywhere else in the country. I suspect we'll also have more suspension repair garages than anywhere else too.


----------



## martint235 (22 Sep 2011)

lit said:


> The speed limit's will be for cars, buses, motorbikes etc. You can't limit the speed of a bicycle on the public highway, it's like telling pedestrians to walk slowly.



Are you sure? You may not be able to be trapped by a speed camera but that isn't the same as it being legal. 

What would happen if you passed a camera equipped police car that can validate its speed? 

If it is legal for a bike to ignore the speed limit, then I think drivers would have a good reason to be p'd off


----------



## dawesome (22 Sep 2011)

ClichéGuevara said:


> I think I'm right in saying we in Hull have more 20mph roads than anywhere else in the country. They're okay in principal, but the reality is there's no way of enforcing it, so the solution has been to provide us with more speed humps than anywhere else in the country. I suspect we'll also have more suspension repair garages than anywhere else too.



Typically within Hull, 20 mph zones have achieved reductions[<a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200102/cmselect/cmtlgr/557/557ap80.htm#note106">106] in injury accidents of:



— Total accidents -56 per cent


— Killed & seriously injured accidents -90 per cent


— Accidents involving child casualties -64 per cent


— All pedestrian accidents -54 per cent


— Child pedestrian accidents -74 per cent.
 It is estimated that at the end of 1999, 390 injury accidents had been prevented within the 20 mph zones which had been previously installed. 122 of these would have involved injuries to children. 


The reason for these reductions is simply because of the reductions in average vehicle speeds which 20 mph zones enforce through their engineering measures. For example, road hump schemes typically see reductions in speed from the high 20's to around 17 mph.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200102/cmselect/cmtlgr/557/557ap80.htm


----------



## clarion (22 Sep 2011)

Speed limits on the roads do not apply to cycles. However, I would stick to 20mph in such a zone. The reason for the limit is usually because they are residential streets. I respect that.

I have 20's Plenty stickers on my fixed.


----------



## gaz (22 Sep 2011)

martint235 said:


> Are you sure? You may not be able to be trapped by a speed camera but that isn't the same as it being legal.
> 
> What would happen if you passed a camera equipped police car that can validate its speed?
> 
> If it is legal for a bike to ignore the speed limit, then I think drivers would have a good reason to be p'd off



RTRA 1984 89



> A person who drives a *motor vehicle* on a road at a speed exceeding a limit imposed by or under any enactment to which this section applies shall be guilty of an offence.


My bold.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (22 Sep 2011)

martint235 said:


> Just saw a piece on t'BBC about 20mph speed limits and how cyclists are campaigning to get these. Assuming the campaigns work, will cyclists actually obey the new speed limit? I can understand if a motorist feels aggrieved by a new speed limit campaigned for by cyclists who then completely ignore it which is what I think will happen.
> 
> There's a 20mph speed limit in Greenwich Park that is almost entirely ignored by cyclists, in fact the only traffic I've ever seen sticking to 20mph are black cabs, that's a first. Maybe a 20mph sign creates some kind of freakish parallel universe



I think the 20mph limit in Greenwich Park should be calculated as an average speed including both up and down journeys so that the slower we go uphill the faster we're allowed to go downhill (to make up for lost time, obviously). However, I doubt that the parks people will buy that idea...

Meanwhile, I observe the limit just about by playing ''guess my speed'' as I descend. It passes the time.... My worst calculations so far have been 18.5mph and 22.5 mph. Usually I'm accurate to within 1mph of the limit.

I must say I've never seen anyone else, black cabs included, observing the limit in the park. Nor have I ever seen the 20mph limit where I live being enforced. I have seen near neighbours driving on the ramped pavement to avoid having to slow down over the speed bumps in the road, and I think that such road behaviour will continue until there is some enforcement.


----------



## BlackPanther (22 Sep 2011)

martint235 said:


> What would happen if you passed a camera equipped police car that can validate its speed?




Not a lot. Bicycles aren't required by law to have speedometers, so how are you supposed to tell if you're over the limit?


----------



## Matthew_T (22 Sep 2011)

There is only one road which I know of which has a permenant 20mph speed limit: Here (Google is behind but there are signs on the entrance)
But there are plenty of temporary 20mph zones outside schools: Here Here and Here.


----------



## Arch (22 Sep 2011)

I'd be lucky to reach 20mph, without the aid of a decent downhill (or which there are very few in York), so the the whole city could be 20mph for all I care!

I think it's only right for cyclists to observe a limit, even if there's no legal requirement - and of course, when circumstances dictate, to ride well under the limit. But just as with drivers, there will bethose who think rules and morality don't apply to them.


----------



## Dan_h (22 Sep 2011)

> RTRA 1984 89
> 
> *Quote*
> 
> ...



+1

The words "motor vehicle" appear quite often in the road traffic act and mean that there are quite a few rules that don't apply to cyclists. Speed limits are one, using a mobile phone while cycling is quite legal (as long as you are not riding dangerously because of it) and even the alchohol limit does not apply (I know you can be pulled over for drunk cycling, but you have to be unable to ride safely not just over the specified limit).

just another reason that cycling is better than driving


----------



## martint235 (22 Sep 2011)

Arch said:


> I'd be lucky to reach 20mph, without the aid of a decent downhill (or which there are very few in York), so the the whole city could be 20mph for all I care!
> 
> I think it's only right for cyclists to observe a limit, even if there's no legal requirement - and of course, when circumstances dictate, to ride well under the limit. But just as with drivers, there will bethose who think rules and morality don't apply to them.



This is what bothers me. Drivers in London today will have seen cyclists protesting for the establishment of a 20mph speed limit over Blackfriars bridge and also the related new stories. If that protest succeeds and drivers do slow down only to be overtaken by cyclist coming off the bridge at well over 20mph, it doesn't do our reputation a great deal of good even if we can get a copper to stand up and tell the world we don't have to obey speed limits.


----------



## Beebo (22 Sep 2011)

deptfordmarmoset said:


> I must say I've never seen anyone else, black cabs included, observing the limit in the park.




i have seen police with speed cameras at the bottom of the hill in Greenwich. 

Tower bridge is 20mph limit, but it is hard to get any where near 20mph during rush hour.


----------



## snorri (22 Sep 2011)

martint235 said:


> This is what bothers me. Drivers in London today will have seen cyclists protesting for the establishment of a 20mph speed limit over Blackfriars bridge and also the related new stories..



It would be a pity if you were to be opposd to 20mph limits nationally on the basis that some drivers in London might be upset at being overtaken by cyclists on a bridge which few of us have ever heard of.


----------



## growingvegetables (22 Sep 2011)

clarion said:


> Speed limits on the roads do not apply to cycles. However, I would stick to 20mph in such a zone. The reason for the limit is usually because they are residential streets. I respect that.


+1


----------



## snailracer (22 Sep 2011)

^^^
Speed limits were introduced because of motor vehicles (steam powered back then) - it is therefore ironic that some cyclists worry about annoying motorists by exceeding them.


----------



## lit (22 Sep 2011)

martint235 said:


> Are you sure? You may not be able to be trapped by a speed camera but that isn't the same as it being legal.
> 
> What would happen if you passed a camera equipped police car that can validate its speed?
> 
> If it is legal for a bike to ignore the speed limit, then I think drivers would have a good reason to be p'd off



100% positive. Coming back down a slight hill from Surrey once, there were police doing speed checks on cars (the old A3 Portsmouth Road between Hampton Court Bridge and Esher) and I was doing 30mph and the policeman and woman just gave me a smile as i went past - the road is 50mph for cars anyhow, should be 40 though.

I've never read of a cyclist done for speeding on public roads, richmond park is the only place you can be (if they catch you of course).


----------



## GFamily (22 Sep 2011)

clarion said:


> Speed limits on the roads do not apply to cycles.



Except on roads in Royal Parks, where speed limits are applied by a different Act of Parliament. 

Cyclists in Richmond Park have been issued with FPNs for exceeding the 20mph limit, and the Metropolitan Police have confirmed that (as far as they are concerned) the limits do apply. 

I am not a lawyer, but I have tried to read the act, and it is not entirely clear that the law relating to speed limits was _intended _to apply to cyclists*, but it has been applied, and you would probably have to go to court with a good barrister to win your case against a FPN.



* As I recall (it was several years back that I looked at it), there are other place in the Act that specify what is, and what is not allowed - in those places the wording used is something like 'motor vehicles and pedal cycles'; however, the section that applies speed limits to the park roads, only mentions vehicles.


----------



## Parrot of Doom (22 Sep 2011)

I'd rather motorists paid attention to their surroundings and relevant hazards, than look at their speedometer every 5 seconds to ensure they're not exceeding an arbitrary limit.


----------



## jds_1981 (22 Sep 2011)

dawesome said:


> Typically within Hull, 20 mph zones have achieved reductions[<a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200102/cmselect/cmtlgr/557/557ap80.htm#note106" >106] in injury accidents of:
> — Total accidents -56 per cent
> — Killed & seriously injured accidents -90 per cent
> — Accidents involving child casualties -64 per cent
> ...



While that points strongly towards correlation, the data is still pretty crap, or at least used in an odd way, which I'm going to go out on a limb for and claim is being used to bias an argument.

Firstly there is a table with values in, then immediately below your quotes which show different values..
Child casualties292 218-25 per centThen


> — Accidents involving child casualties -64 per cent


WTF? Oh, it's using different years...

Also the table compares Hull against Great Britain, which really isn't a like for like comparison.
Also the table shows that the introduction of speed bumps and limits increased (relatively) child cyclist casualties compares to 'Great Britain' by 7%.

Moving onto their survey of opinions (Which are often a very unreliable source to get 'facts' from)


> — 25 per cent of respondents felt that there was less traffic since the 20 mph zone had been installed.


So what did the other 75% think? I'm going to guess some split between 'no difference' & 'more', so their selectiveness is quite a weasel figure.
Similar for the walking


> — Over 25 per cent of respondents said that they walked or cycled more since the scheme was introduced.



It'd be nice for once if these reports compared like-for-like data in a fairly raw format.


----------



## pshore (23 Sep 2011)

lit said:


> The speed limit's will be for cars, buses, motorbikes etc. You can't limit the speed of a bicycle on the public highway, it's like telling pedestrians to walk slowly.



Aye. Until cycles are legislated to have speedos fitted, you can't expect riders to know what their speed is. 

However, there are still laws to catch idiots who are endangering others such as careless cycling.


----------



## dawesome (23 Sep 2011)

jds_1981 said:


> While that points strongly towards correlation, the data is still pretty crap, or at least used in an odd way, which I'm going to go out on a limb for and claim is being used to bias an argument.
> 
> Firstly there is a table with values in, then immediately below your quotes which show different values..
> Child casualties292 218-25 per centThen
> ...




It's pretty straightforward. Higher speeds increase the likelihood of collisions and increase the severity of these injuries. The only reason they're using different years is because the 20mph zones didn't exist in different years, obviously. Speeding is reported as the number one anti-social behaviour in the British Crime Survey, unless you are arguing that drivers should drive at any speed they like and use public roads as their own personal racetrack I'm not sure what your point is. Do you know the difference in the likelihood of death at 20 mph collisions versus speeds above 30?


----------



## Norm (23 Sep 2011)

dawesome said:


> Do you know the difference in the likelihood of death at 20 mph collisions versus speeds above 30?


 Yes, but do you know the difference in the likelihood of collisions at 20 mph versus those at speeds above 30mph?


----------



## dawesome (23 Sep 2011)

Parrot of Doom said:


> I'd rather motorists paid attention to their surroundings and relevant hazards, than look at their speedometer every 5 seconds to ensure they're not exceeding an arbitrary limit.



Do yu find yourself unable to drive safely without checking your speedo every FIVE SECONDS? You don't think, maybe, there are other things you should be concentrating on? It's not hard for a competent driver to know pretty accurately whether their speed is above or below the posted limit, if you are unable to drive on public roads without gazing at your speedo have you considered extra tuition? It's a rudimentary part of safe driving that most drivers manage with no problem. If you collided with a vulnerable road user and offered as a defence, "I was staring at my speedometer" do you reckon you'd get off?


----------



## dawesome (23 Sep 2011)

Norm said:


> Yes, but do you know the difference in the likelihood of collisions at 20 mph versus those at speeds above 30mph?



Yep.

TRL 421, 

‘The effects of drivers’ speed on the frequency of road accidents’ published in March 2000.

This study was designed to discover the speed-crash relationship. The authors looked at 300 sections of road, made 2 million observations of speed and got 10,000 drivers to complete questionnaires. They found that 
 the faster the traffic moves on average, the more crashes there are (and crash frequency increases approximately with the square of average traffic speed)
 the larger the spread of speeds around the average, the more crashes there are
 They also found that: 


 drivers who choose speeds above the average on some roads tend also to do so on all roads
 higher speed drivers are associated with a significantly greater crash involvement than are slower drivers
 For these reasons they conclude that the speed of the fastest drivers (those travelling faster than the average for the road) should be reduced. The study confirmed what is described as a ‘robust general rule’ relating crash reductions to speed reductions: for every 1 mph reduction average speed, crashes are reduced by between 2-7%. More specifically, the crash reduction figure is around 


 6% for urban roads with low average speeds
 4% for medium speed urban roads and lower speed rural main roads
 3% for higher speed urban roads and rural main roads
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/wiki/ABD's_Lonely_Factoid


----------



## dawesome (23 Sep 2011)

Come on, this is basic biology. A human can run at 20 mph. That's what the body, our bodies, are designed for. Impact collisions above this speed are lethal, your internal organs become detached and you bleed to death, if the trauma of the impact itself doesn't kill you. Our bodies are designed to withstand running into a tree at 20mph tops. Above 20mph you are much more likely to die. 20mph zones save lives because impact speeds are at a safer level.


----------



## martint235 (23 Sep 2011)

snorri said:


> It would be a pity if you were to be opposd to 20mph limits nationally on the basis that some drivers in London might be upset at being overtaken by cyclists on a bridge which few of us have ever heard of.



I'm not opposed to them. I'm just not keen on bringing in a law that gives a guy in 2 tons of steel next to me, more reason to dislike me. My point is that if cyclists want them, they should at least abide by them.


----------



## BentMikey (23 Sep 2011)

Greenwich I think is a Royal Park. Chances are that in this park the 20mph limit is enacted by a bye-law that makes it also applicable to bicycles. That means us cyclists can also be done for speeding here, as regularly happens in Richmond Park. The rest of the public highway, however, you can't.

Like most I accept that despite it being totally legal, there's some sort of moral aspect which means when I go above the speed limit for motor vehicles, I do it rarely, and not by much.


----------



## Parrot of Doom (23 Sep 2011)

dawesome said:


> Do yu find yourself unable to drive safely without checking your speedo every FIVE SECONDS? You don't think, maybe, there are other things you should be concentrating on? It's not hard for a competent driver to know pretty accurately whether their speed is above or below the posted limit, if you are unable to drive on public roads without gazing at your speedo have you considered extra tuition? It's a rudimentary part of safe driving that most drivers manage with no problem. If you collided with a vulnerable road user and offered as a defence, "I was staring at my speedometer" do you reckon you'd get off?



As a driver of 20-odd years and someone who took and passed the IAM course, I think my driving isn't too bad. Five seconds was, of course, an exaggeration, but I do not believe that rigid enforcement of speed limits is beneficial to road safety.

BTW, I break the speed limit all the time - pretty much every day. Sometimes I drive massively under the speed limit. I use my observation to judge what is a safe speed, not a number on a stick. Clean licence too, and always has been.


----------



## Parrot of Doom (23 Sep 2011)

dawesome said:


> Come on, this is basic biology. A human can run at 20 mph. That's what the body, our bodies, are designed for. Impact collisions above this speed are lethal, your internal organs become detached and you bleed to death, if the trauma of the impact itself doesn't kill you. Our bodies are designed to withstand running into a tree at 20mph tops. Above 20mph you are much more likely to die. 20mph zones save lives because impact speeds are at a safer level.



Impact speeds are almost always well below free travelling speeds.


----------



## DrSquirrel (23 Sep 2011)

martint235 said:


> I'm not opposed to them. I'm just not keen on bringing in a law that gives a guy in 2 tons of steel next to me, more reason to dislike me. My point is that if cyclists want them, they should at least abide by them.




They, Cyclists - neither of these are me, I don't want them neither would I adhere to them (since I don't have to).

"Motorists" are going to hate on cyclists for some reason or other, all it does is shift their excuses.

Anyway, that guy in 2 tons of steel should be driving slower than my sub 0.1 tons of mass...


----------



## clarion (23 Sep 2011)

Mikey, you are right. Greenwich _is_ a Royal Park, so the speed limits _do_ apply to us too, just as they do in Richmond Park. I admit I forgot this when I was there for the first time last weekend, and did ride a shade over 20mph, though I was on fixed, so I didn't want to go very fast. It is surprising how much you have to hold back to stay legal in Richmond Park, and how many cars steam past when you do.

For information, the Royal Parks are:

Bushy Park
Green Park
Richmond Park
The Regent's Park
Brompton Cemetery
St James's Park
Kensington Gardens
Greenwich Park
Hyde Park

From http://www.royalparks.gov.uk/


----------



## Norm (23 Sep 2011)

dawesome said:


> Yep.
> 
> TRL 421,


Wow, I'm impressed.


----------



## John the Monkey (23 Sep 2011)

Parrot of Doom said:


> I'd rather motorists paid attention to their surroundings and relevant hazards, than look at their speedometer every 5 seconds to ensure they're not exceeding an arbitrary limit.



If they can't maintain a constant speed without doing this, why the hell are they on the road AT ALL?


----------



## BentMikey (23 Sep 2011)

If you can't know your speed when you're driving, and know whether you're at or below the speed limit, then I'd argue you don't deserve to be driving, and shouldn't have passed your test.


----------



## dawesome (23 Sep 2011)

Parrot of Doom said:


> As a driver of 20-odd years and someone who took and passed the IAM course, I think my driving isn't too bad.
> 
> BTW, I break the speed limit all the time - pretty much every day.



Come again?


----------



## StuartG (23 Sep 2011)

jds_1981 said:


> While that points strongly towards correlation, the data is still pretty crap, or at least used in an odd way, which I'm going to go out on a limb for and claim is being used to bias an argument.


I have not seen the study for this so cannot comment on its credibility. Except that it is not that far removed by the first credible study covering 20mph urban speed limits (in London). That showed KSI's down over 40% and higher amongst the young. That study (you can find some links to it in the Campaigning sub-forum) showed that the passive measures (snoring plods) reduced average speeds on these roads from around 27 mph to 17 mph.

Its well worth reading that report. It is very honest in reporting the limitations of the study and the need for further studies. However, the headline reduction is so striking that this is a report that cannot be ignored. AFAIK the results have not been seriously questioned so far and I'm sure there are many interested parties wishing to undermine them. So it looks like the best info we have on the effects of reducing motor vehicle speeds in urban areas.

As people elsewhere have sadly commented - speed signs are of little use without enforcement. In this case through your suspension.


----------



## dawesome (23 Sep 2011)

Parrot of Doom said:


> Impact speeds are almost always well below free travelling speeds.



A dangerous, dishonest claim comprehensively debunked here:

If we consider a car being driven at 36mph, then that car’s residual speed at the 12 metre marker may not have reduced at all – the car would possibly have slowed down by 1mph to 35mph if the driver has good reactions, but nearly all, if not all, of the distance will be taken up with thinking rather than braking. (Certainly as speeds approach and then exceed 40mph there is absolutely no chance of the driver reducing their speed at all by the impact distance of 12 metres.) A residual speed of at best 35mph is inevitably catastrophic to the human body. Using the same calculations, this is the equivalent of a child falling backwards out of a fifth floor apartment onto concrete. No-one would expect a child to survive that fall.

This clearly demonstrates the stupidity of Safe Speed when they say that ‘very few pedestrian impacts take place at free travelling speeds’. In fact, any driver choosing to drive at 36mph or above who hits a child 12 metres in front of them is almost inevitably going to be travelling at their so-called ‘free travelling speed’. Parents don’t let their children hang around on fifth floor window ledges. But many drivers in the UK, many of whom are parents, do drive above 30mph in their own communities. This is a comparison everyone can understand.



http://www.brake.org.uk/take-action/speech-to-speed-congress-2010-by-mary-williams-obe-brake-ce.htm




StuartG said:


> I have not seen the study for this so cannot comment on its credibility. Except that it is not that far removed by the first credible study covering 20mph urban speed limits (in London). That showed KSI's down over 40% and higher amongst the young. That study (you can find some links to it in the Campaigning sub-forum) showed that the passive measures (snoring plods) reduced average speeds on these roads from around 27 mph to 17 mph.
> 
> Its well worth reading that report. It is very honest in reporting the limitations of the study and the need for further studies. However, the headline reduction is so striking that this is a report that cannot be ignored. AFAIK the results have not been seriously questioned so far and I'm sure there are many interested parties wishing to undermine them. So it looks like the best info we have on the effects of reducing motor vehicle speeds in urban areas.
> 
> As people elsewhere have sadly commented - speed signs are of little use without enforcement. In this case through your suspension.



This is quite correct:

*Results* The introduction of 20 mph zones was associated with a 41.9% (95% confidence interval 36.0% to 47.8%) reduction in road casualties, after adjustment for underlying time trends. The percentage reduction was greatest in younger children and greater for the category of killed or seriously injured casualties than for minor injuries. There was no evidence of casualty migration to areas adjacent to 20 mph zones, where casualties also fell slightly by an average of 8.0% (4.4% to 11.5%). 

*Conclusions *20 mph zones are effective measures for reducing road injuries and deaths. 





http://www.bmj.com/content/339/bmj....FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=date&resourcetype=HWCIT


----------



## MacB (23 Sep 2011)

dawesome said:


> It's pretty straightforward. Higher speeds increase the likelihood of collisions and increase the severity of these injuries. The only reason they're using different years is because the 20mph zones didn't exist in different years, obviously. Speeding is reported as the number one anti-social behaviour in the British Crime Survey, unless you are arguing that drivers should drive at any speed they like and use public roads as their own personal racetrack I'm not sure what your point is. Do you know the difference in the likelihood of death at 20 mph collisions versus speeds above 30?



What about speed bumps, as a cyclist I've found road furniture like speedbumps, chicanes, rumblestrips, pinchpoints have actually increased my motorist/cyclist negative interaction ratio...to the point that I will avoid cycling on certain roads which would otherwise be ideal. I also have concerns that these measures can focus a drivers attention away from their peripheral vision.

I don't disagree around 20mph limits I just question the methodology used to enforce them.


----------



## StuartG (23 Sep 2011)

Parrot of Doom said:


> As a driver of 20-odd years and someone who took and passed the IAM course, I think my driving isn't too bad ...
> 
> BTW, I break the speed limit all the time ...



93% of drivers think they are above average: http://www.cheapcarinsurance.net/above-avarege-driver/
At least 43% of them are deluded. I think that includes you.

Clean record = safe driver? Well if you speed every day that says something dreadful about enforcement. You are just the person (self confident dangerous criminal) from whom we should be removing the driving licence.

Tell me you are really trolling ... please!


----------



## StuartG (23 Sep 2011)

MacB said:


> What about speed bumps, as a cyclist I've found road furniture like speedbumps, chicanes, rumblestrips, pinchpoints have actually increased my motorist/cyclist negative interaction ratio...to the point that I will avoid cycling on certain roads which would otherwise be ideal. I also have concerns that these measures can focus a drivers attention away from their peripheral vision.


The danger is you are talking about perception and not facts (as best we can determine them). I, as a motorist and a cyclists, hate bumps. I think they divert my attention. But the bottom line is statistics point very strongly that you are safer on a 20mph humped street than a 30mph unhumped one. By avoiding them you may paradoxically be putting yourself in greater danger.


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (23 Sep 2011)

martint235 said:


> I'm not opposed to them. I'm just not keen on bringing in a law that gives a guy in 2 tons of steel next to me, more reason to dislike me. My point is that if cyclists want them, they should at least abide by them.



I would like a 20 MPH* limit for motor vehicles on some part of my route. When I'm in a motorvehicle I will abide by it, in the same way I abide by the one way system. When I'm not in a motorvehicle I feel no obligation whatsoever to abide by the law, in the same way I quite happily walk in the opposite direction of the one way system.


----------



## StuartG (23 Sep 2011)

1554809 said:


> 46% no?


Correct 46% is bigger than 43%. Seriously it depends what you mean by 'them' - all drivers or above average drivers. My apologies for misleading the great British public with some Swedish view of a nation of which we know so little - except they ain't going to be hit by UARS. 

(As predicted by NASA who eksewhere have said they can't predict where it is going to crash until after the event. Shows the guts of those astronauts who sat on top of one of NASA's creations!).


----------



## MacB (23 Sep 2011)

StuartG said:


> The danger is you are talking about perception and not facts (as best we can determine them). I, as a motorist and a cyclists, hate bumps. I think they divert my attention. But the bottom line is statistics point very strongly that you are safer on a 20mph humped street than a 30mph unhumped one. By avoiding them you may paradoxically be putting yourself in greater danger.



But I'm not disagreeing with the 20mph I'm just not convinced that an alternative enforcement method wouldn't be an even greater improvement. I'm also not sure I'm just talking about perception, I have experienced extremely erratic driver behaviour around pinchpoints and partial width speed bumps in particular. It may, or may not, be as dangerous as behaviour on unrestricted roads but it clearly only occurs due to the presence of road furniture.

My view is pretty simple, we limit the speed at source, so in car limiters, the technology exists and it would be effective. Others disagree with this as they believe it should be tackled via driver skills and training, and that without this people would just drive pedal to floor like a dodgem car, if limiting tech was used. I don't know if they would but can't discount the possibility, but I'd be prepared to give it a try.


----------



## Wankelschrauben (23 Sep 2011)

Dan_h said:


> +1
> 
> The words "motor vehicle" appear quite often in the road traffic act and mean that there are quite a few rules that don't apply to cyclists. Speed limits are one, using a mobile phone while cycling is quite legal (as long as you are not riding dangerously because of it) and even the alchohol limit does not apply (I know you can be pulled over for drunk cycling, but you have to be unable to ride safely not just over the specified limit).
> 
> just another reason that cycling is better than driving




Wrong, wrong, wrong and wrong.

Corkery Vs. Carpenter 1951.

The defendant was succesfully prosecuted under the licensing act 1872 for being drunk whilst in charge of a bicycle on a public road.

After lengthy debates the courts declared that a bicycle is covered under the terms of "carriage" for the purpose of s.12 of the licensing act 1872. This was applied under the "mischief rule" of the rules of interpretation, whereby a judge can interpret legislation in such a way to give the statute the lawful affect for which it was intended.


----------



## benb (23 Sep 2011)

Parrot of Doom said:


> As a driver of 20-odd years and someone who took and passed the IAM course, I think my driving isn't too bad. Five seconds was, of course, an exaggeration, but I do not believe that rigid enforcement of speed limits is beneficial to road safety.
> 
> BTW, I break the speed limit all the time - pretty much every day. Sometimes I drive massively under the speed limit. I use my observation to judge what is a safe speed, not a number on a stick. Clean licence too, and always has been.



Arrogant and dangerous. This attitude stinks.
I hope you are not driving on any roads near me.


----------



## Parrot of Doom (23 Sep 2011)

BentMikey said:


> If you can't know your speed when you're driving, and know whether you're at or below the speed limit, then I'd argue you don't deserve to be driving, and shouldn't have passed your test.



Really, so what's the speed limit here:

http://maps.google.co.uk/?ll=53.386...=R4eCDEOodCbP4lKV4_8nTw&cbp=12,281.58,,0,6.44


----------



## Parrot of Doom (23 Sep 2011)

benb said:


> Arrogant and dangerous. This attitude stinks.
> I hope you are not driving on any roads near me.



My attitude has kept me and everyone around me safe and sound for many years. I view speed limit signs as a guide to what is generally considered to be a maximum safe speed, but nothing more. If you've any experience driving then you'll understand that many speed limits are now set not on technical grounds, but on political grounds. A road near me, the A6144 (formerly A6144(M)) is a case in point.

You probably now think I drive around with my foot pressed to the floor everywhere I go, but you couldn't be further from the truth.


If you're one of those people who believe that speed is the most important factor in the determination of safe driving, then I can only say you're ignorant. And I don't mean that to be an insult. Do yourself a favour, go and read _Roadcraft_. There are many, many aspects to safe driving, and speed is one of the least significant.


----------



## dawesome (23 Sep 2011)

I'm pretty sure the London 20mph zones will be policed by average speed cameras:

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/stand...ds-of-speed-cameras-to-enforce-20mph-zones.do

The devices would be used to enforce 20mph zones and may even replace speed humps. Hackney said it wanted 20mph limits on all its residential roads.A council spokeswoman said: “This has been shown to significantly reduce accidents, and residents have told us they support this proposal.”


----------



## lit (23 Sep 2011)

Parrot of Doom said:


> Really, so what's the speed limit here:
> 
> http://maps.google.c...,281.58,,0,6.44



You'd make a good politician.


----------



## BentMikey (23 Sep 2011)

Or a good safespeed bullsh1t artist press officer.

A driver who thinks he/she is good enough to exceed the speed limit daily has immediately proved that they don't have the judgement to deserve holding a driving license. OTOH I'd fully accept that there are many other skills to safe driving and road use, but that doesn't change the fact that exceeding the speed limit is an instant fail on your driving test.


----------



## Parrot of Doom (23 Sep 2011)

When I took my driving test Mikey, I exceeded the speed limit. It was expected of you. Driving at 28mph in a clear, wide, 30 zone would be more likely to achieve a fail as you would be deemed to be holding up the flow of traffic.

You might not believe me but that's how I was taught, that's how I took my test, and that's one of the reasons why I passed without comment.

So what's the speed limit on the road I posted? If you don't know, you shouldn't be on the road.


----------



## dawesome (23 Sep 2011)

Parrot of Doom said:


> My attitude has kept me and everyone around me safe and sound for many years. I view speed limit signs as a guide to what is generally considered to be a maximum safe speed, but nothing more. If you've any experience driving then you'll understand that many speed limits are now set not on technical grounds, but on political grounds. A road near me, the A6144 (formerly A6144(M)) is a case in point.



You're quite big on grandiose claims based on zero evidence aren't you? This reminds me of my little brother who keeps sending me 9/11 conspiracy videos. I blame the X Factor, the process of cheap tawdry dumbing down of the population.

Politicians don't set speed limits, that's paranoid ramblings. People with a lot more experience of road safety than your or me set speed limits, or, as in the London example, the residents themselves clamour for speed reductions so that twatty little boy racers no longer use public roads as their own personal racetrack. 





Parrot of Doom said:


> If you're one of those people who believe that speed is the most important factor in the determination of safe driving, then I can only say you're ignorant. And I don't mean that to be an insult. Do yourself a favour, go and read _Roadcraft_. There are many, many aspects to safe driving, and speed is one of the least significant.



You disagree with the BMJ research set out upthread? On what grounds please? Their research confirmed the findings of TRL421, which you've ignored (whoever said you'd make a good politician was on the money!). Increased speeds mean more accidents and more severe injuries. That's a fact, and to pre-empt your triumphant presentation of accident rates on motorways, that's a load of old trousers, there are no cyclists on motorways, no corner shops, schools, zebra crossings, pedestrians or pubs.

Up and down the country people are fed up to the back teeth with people who delude themselves that bombing along public roads above the speed limit is safe driving. Even if you are lucky enough not to smash into someone and tear a family apart you are still being anti-social, aggressive, bullying and intimidatory, there doesn't have to be an accident for speeding to have a negative impact on the people unlucky enough to live on the roads you use to break the law on. Claiming to be a good driver whilst boasting of speeding is just breathtaking chutzpah, it's like claiming to be a good father because you only punch your children in the face on Sundays, get a grip man, wake up to what you're doing, just get out of bed earlier or set off a few minutes earlier. Swallow as much of the Safespeed bum gravy as you like, just don't you dare carry over their inane ramblings into real life and onto roads you share with me.


----------



## dawesome (23 Sep 2011)

Parrot of Doom said:


> Driving at 28mph in a clear, wide, 30 zone would be more likely to achieve a fail as you would be deemed to be holding up the flow of traffic.



There we go again.

Ok, I'll bite, you got a source for this? An example of someone failing their driving test for doing 28 in a 30, he asked with little hope of a sensible answer.


----------



## jds_1981 (23 Sep 2011)

StuartG said:


> The danger is you are talking about perception and not facts (as best we can determine them). I, as a motorist and a cyclists, hate bumps. I think they divert my attention. But the bottom line is statistics point very strongly that you are safer on a 20mph humped street than a 30mph unhumped one. By avoiding them you may paradoxically be putting yourself in greater danger.



There is of course the chance that as speed restrictions are added to more thoroughfare routes things become more complicated. A B road I commute on is a 20 there is a lot of maneuvering by cars to avoid speed bumps that put them in conflict with cyclists..

http://maps.google.co.uk/?ll=51.547...=KP8tb44Lj9XezE8X7-dI4A&cbp=12,162.52,,0,9.25


----------



## Parrot of Doom (23 Sep 2011)

Dawesome you seem to be taking this a little bit too personally. I'm not interesting in getting into a slanging match with you or anyone else here. I never said that politicians set speed limits, and I wasn't about to mention motorways either.

Safe to say I consider myself to be a safe driver with above average driving skills (and please, don't start with the obvious reply there, because I know all about that), and someone who while cycling, you would definitely rather encounter over the mouth-breathing idiots who think they own the road and who think that cyclists are beneath them.

If you'd rather believe that someone who doesn't adhere absolutely to a rigid system of rules is going to be a dangerous nutter, then that's your prerogative.

As for my claim about my driving test, it's anecdotal, and may have been restricted to the area I was tested in. But I'd rather trust to my own experiences and the lessons I was taught by my driving instructor, than go running around the internet to satisfy your lust for "victory".

If you start making this personal, trust that your postings will be ignored.


----------



## benb (23 Sep 2011)

Parrot of Doom said:


> My attitude has kept me and everyone around me safe and sound for many years.



More by luck than judgement, I would submit.



> I view speed limit signs as a guide to what is generally considered to be a maximum safe speed, but nothing more.



Breathtaking arrogance. Which other laws do you pick and choose whether to bother complying with, on the basis that you know better?




> If you've any experience driving then you'll understand that many speed limits are now set not on technical grounds, but on political grounds. A road near me, the A6144 (formerly A6144(M)) is a case in point.



Paranoid, conspiratorial drivel. Politicians, I'm sure, would love to be able to relax speed limits, given how popular it would be with sections of the electorate. Luckily it's not up to them.



> You probably now think I drive around with my foot pressed to the floor everywhere I go, but you couldn't be further from the truth.



I don't think that, but conclude from what you've said that you often drive dangerously fast.




> If you're one of those people who believe that speed is the most important factor in the determination of safe driving, then I can only say you're ignorant. And I don't mean that to be an insult. Do yourself a favour, go and read _Roadcraft_. There are many, many aspects to safe driving, and speed is one of the least significant.



Absolute rubbish. Increase in speed will not only increase the likelihood of an accident due to increased reaction and stopping distance, but will increase the severity of any accident. I agree that there are many other aspects to safe driving, but speed is one of the most significant, not the least.

You're a danger to yourself and others.


----------



## jds_1981 (23 Sep 2011)

Also worth taking note of - what are the trade-offs people are willing to make regarding speed against accidents? If no-one was allowed to go above 5 mph (including joggers, cyclists, cars) serious accidents would be reduced to near zero. I suspect that very few people are willing to go this far down the trade-off route though.
Another solution would by barriers between pavements and roads with a few designated crossing places. Once again, few people would like this solution..


----------



## dawesome (23 Sep 2011)

jds_1981 said:


> There is of course the chance that as speed restrictions are added to more thoroughfare routes things become more complicated. A B road I commute on is a 20 there is a lot of maneuvering by cars to avoid speed bumps that put them in conflict with cyclists..
> 
> http://maps.google.c...,162.52,,0,9.25



London's average speed cameras also use ANPR technology. 1 in 8 cars in Tottenham, for instance, is uninsured. It's a win/win!


----------



## dawesome (23 Sep 2011)

jds_1981 said:


> Also worth taking note of - what are the trade-offs people are willing to make regarding speed against accidents? If no-one was allowed to go above 5 mph (including joggers, cyclists, cars) serious accidents would be reduced to near zero. I suspect that very few people are willing to go this far down the trade-off route though.
> Another solution would by barriers between pavements and roads with a few designated crossing places. Once again, few people would like this solution..




5 pages in and we're already on the

_"They'll bring back the man with the red flag next!!!11111"_

Not bad.


----------



## jds_1981 (23 Sep 2011)

dawesome said:


> 5 pages in and we're already on the
> 
> _"They'll bring back the man with the red flag next!!!11111"_
> 
> Not bad.



Don't be stupid. It's a serious point. There is a trade-off that everyone has to make an opinion on (if you assume increased speed = more/worse accidents) regarding the acceptable accident against speed trade-off.


----------



## mickle (23 Sep 2011)

I was banging on at my missus about 20 mph zones (it's a regular subject of conversation around our dinner table) when she suggested that I simply drove at 20 mph in the areas I thought should be reclassified. 

So now I drive at 20mph almost everywhere within York city ring-road. Obvious innit.


----------



## StuartG (23 Sep 2011)

Parrot of Doom said:


> If you're one of those people who believe that speed is the most important factor in the determination of safe driving, then I can only say you're ignorant.


I thought you should be allowed to drive on the road. Now I am sure of it!

You stupidly (if we are getting into such epithets) divorce speed as the most important attribute of the damage that is going to occur in a collision. Or do you restrict your driving to the CERN campus where a different physics may exist? 

As for the safe speed such that your judgement will always be correct - it is zero. You may be able to control your car better at a higher speed than another ( though your judgement in this is worrying) - but despite that it is going to increase the risk to other road users who have to look out for you (or for small kids) who don't.

From your car seat you can't see everything. The unexpected happens. You need time to take action. That is directly extremely related to your speed. I think I would rather rely on a traffic engineer's (or even a politician's!) balance of the risk of speed than yours.

In road crashes people are more at risk from mistakes than malice. You seem to pack quite a few ...


----------



## MacB (23 Sep 2011)

mickle said:


> I was banging on at my missus about 20 mph zones (it's a regular subject of conversation around our dinner table) when she suggested that I simply drove at 20 mph in the areas I thought should be reclassified.
> 
> So now I drive at 20mph almost everywhere within York city ring-road. Obvious innit.



does this qualify as a 'Mickle Tip' on how to be popular?


----------



## Dan_h (23 Sep 2011)

> *
> 
> Dan_h, on 22 September 2011 - 20:25:32, said:*
> +1
> ...



Nope, the Corkery v Carpenter 1951 ruling applied to the use of the word "carriage" this was changed in the Road Traffic Act 1984 to be "motor vehicle" along with a definition of what constitutes a motor vehicle. Also I didn't say that you cant be drunk in charge of a bicycle only that the standard by which this is judged is not the legal alchohol limit but your ability to safely operate it.


----------



## dawesome (23 Sep 2011)

jds_1981 said:


> Don't be stupid. It's a serious point. There is a trade-off that everyone has to make an opinion on (if you assume increased speed = more/worse accidents) regarding the acceptable accident against speed trade-off.



Nope, it's a silly straw man, nobody's proposed making the speed limit 5mph for cyclists and it will never happen. The default speed limit for all residential streets should be 20mph, the evidence, which you've first claimed was "biased" and then ignored clearly demonstrates this.


----------



## mickle (23 Sep 2011)

Parrot of Doom said:


> I view speed limit signs as a guide to what is generally considered to be a maximum safe speed, but nothing more. blah blah blah.



A _guide_?? There's the rub. You and tens of thousands of idiots like you. My commute is infested with drivers who think the way that you do. Which is why I'm regularly passed by cars exceeding the national speed limit by some margin. Most of these are people who also think that the minumum safe overtaking gap for cyclists is a 'guide' too. 

I hope I never encounter you when I'm on my bike.


----------



## Parrot of Doom (23 Sep 2011)

benb said:


> More by luck than judgement, I would submit.



You would be wrong.



benb said:


> Breathtaking arrogance. Which other laws do you pick and choose whether to bother complying with, on the basis that you know better?



No more than anyone else. Do you *always* enter ASLs via the entry in the gutter? Do you have reflectors on your pedals? Have you ever left your engine running while not sat in the driver's seat? Have you ever cycled or driven along a pavement? I'm not going to judge you based on what laws you ignore. What would be the point?



benb said:


> Paranoid, conspiratorial drivel. Politicians, I'm sure, would love to be able to relax speed limits, given how popular it would be with sections of the electorate. Luckily it's not up to them.



I did not say that politicians set speed limits.



benb said:


> I don't think that, but conclude from what you've said that you often drive dangerously fast.



I never drive dangerously. There are occasions where I've made a mistake that could have had minor consequences, but that's absolutely no different to anyone else, from the pedestrian who steps into the road without looking, to the cyclist who filters inappropriately.



benb said:


> Absolute rubbish. Increase in speed will not only increase the likelihood of an accident due to increased reaction and stopping distance, but will increase the severity of any accident. I agree that there are many other aspects to safe driving, but speed is one of the most significant, not the least.



I think you're wrong. From memory, the usual contributory factor in most road traffic accidents is "failed to look".



benb said:


> You're a danger to yourself and others.



You are wrong. The dangerous people are those who lack observations skills.


----------



## dawesome (23 Sep 2011)

Parrot of Doom said:


> You would be wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> ...






Pedal reflectors and pavement cycling do not feature as a significant factor in fatal RTCs. 

Speed is the single most common factor in fatal RTCs.

Hope this helps.

You claimed speed limits are set for political reasons, now you deny politicians set speed limits, I sense confusion.


----------



## Parrot of Doom (23 Sep 2011)

StuartG said:


> I thought you should be allowed to drive on the road. Now I am sure of it!
> 
> You stupidly (if we are getting into such epithets) divorce speed as the most important attribute of the damage that is going to occur in a collision. Or do you restrict your driving to the CERN campus where a different physics may exist?



Where did I say anything like that? Please don't put words in my mouth, I never said any such thing.



StuartG said:


> As for the safe speed such that your judgement will always be correct - it is zero. You may be able to control your car better at a higher speed than another ( though your judgement in this is worrying) - but despite that it is going to increase the risk to other road users who have to look out for you (or for small kids) who don't.



I agree with your first point. I never said I was able to control my car better at a higher speed than others though, did I? That isn't the point I'm trying to make.



StuartG said:


> From your car seat you can't see everything. The unexpected happens. You need time to take action. That is directly extremely related to your speed. I think I would rather rely on a traffic engineer's (or even a politician's!) balance of the risk of speed than yours.



I agree completely, which is why I view observation and anticipation as skills which are far more important than the ability simply to obey the speed limit.



StuartG said:


> In road crashes people are more at risk from mistakes than malice. You seem to pack quite a few ...



And yet, I've never had a medium or high-speed accident. In all my years of driving I've had a few sub-5mph collisions that resulted in a scraped panel or dented wing, but not now for many years.


----------



## Parrot of Doom (23 Sep 2011)

mickle said:


> A _guide_?? There's the rub. You and tens of thousands of idiots like you. My commute is infested with drivers who think the way that you do. Which is why I'm regularly passed by cars exceeding the national speed limit by some margin. Most of these are people who also think that the minumum safe overtaking gap for cyclists is a 'guide' too.
> 
> I hope I never encounter you when I'm on my bike.



So I'm an idiot, which makes someone like you, who has never met me or seen me drive...what, exactly? Prejudiced, perhaps? Ignored, certainly.


----------



## benb (23 Sep 2011)

Parrot of Doom said:


> I never drive dangerously.



If you routinely exceed the speed limit, then you do.



> From memory, the usual contributory factor in most road traffic accidents is "failed to look".



Spectacularly missing the point. Regardless of the primary cause of an accident, increased speed will make any accident more likely, and will make any accident more severe.
And as your judgement is so poor in this area, I would question how good it is in others.

Basically, what you're saying is that shaving some time off your journey is more important than other road users safety.


----------



## StuartG (23 Sep 2011)

Parrot of Doom said:


> The dangerous people are those who lack observations skills.


The deaf, blind and young.

It IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO LOOK OUT FOR THEM. 
Not blame them ... even if it means slowing down a bit.

You are incredible. Care to share your registration number?


----------



## Parrot of Doom (23 Sep 2011)

dawesome said:


> Pedal reflectors and pavement cycling do not feature as a significant factor in fatal RTCs.
> 
> Speed is the single most common factor in fatal RTCs.
> 
> ...



Again, you remove my comments from their proper context and create a non-existent argument. I really wouldn't waste your time dawesome.


----------



## dawesome (23 Sep 2011)

benb said:


> If you routinely exceed the speed limit, then you do.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I think Parrot's argument is more:

"I speed and have never crashed, therefore speeding is ok"

This is a common argument among the pro-speeding lobby, and as I said it completely ignores the fact that THERE DOESN'T HAVE TO BE AN ACCIDENT FOR SPEEDING TO BE ANTI-SOCIAL.

Sorry for shouting, but that argument as an example of wilful self-delusion is an absolute doozy.


----------



## dellzeqq (23 Sep 2011)

dawesome said:


> Come again?


you're wasting your time......


----------



## dawesome (23 Sep 2011)

Parrot of Doom said:


> Again, you remove my comments from their proper context and create a non-existent argument. I really wouldn't waste your time dawesome.





Parrot of Doom said:


> My attitude has kept me and everyone around me safe and sound for many years. I view speed limit signs as a guide to what is generally considered to be a maximum safe speed, but nothing more. *If you've any experience driving then you'll understand that many speed limits are now set not on technical grounds, but on political grounds. *





You claimed speed limits were set "on political grounds", then denied that politicians were involved in setting speed limits.


----------



## dellzeqq (23 Sep 2011)

Parrot of Doom said:


> Again, you remove my comments from their proper context and create a non-existent argument. I really wouldn't waste your time dawesome.


it isn't a question of context - you're telling us that you speed, which is wrong. Just don't do it. And there's nothing wrong with speed limits being set for political reasons - people are entitled not to feel menaced by drivers like you, and politicians are right to legislate for that entitlement

I think it behoves us all to keep to the 20mph limit. I reckon there's an opportunity here. Ben could hire himself out to BSO riders who could loop a bungee strap round his seatpost, and, thusly, both could travel at twenty. The BSOiste gets to work on time and pays Ben a mite for his trouble. All arranged via CC which picks up a 10% arrangement fee.


----------



## Parrot of Doom (23 Sep 2011)

benb said:


> If you routinely exceed the speed limit, then you do.



In which case every single emergency vehicle drives dangerously. It's a nonsense statement of course, and obviously I don't have the same experience or qualifications as a driver of an emergency vehicle, but it is entirely possible to exceed the posted limit and still drive safely. The fact that many, many limits in this country have been reduced does not suddenly make people who still drive on those affected roads at speeds once considered acceptable, "dangerous".



benb said:


> Spectacularly missing the point. Regardless of the primary cause of an accident, increased speed will make any accident more likely, and will make any accident more severe.
> And as your judgement is so poor in this area, I would question how good it is in others.



So your solution is to focus not on the primary contributory factor in any accident, but on secondary factors? I'm afraid then that we'll never agree on this. You have your point of view, I respect that, but it's one I don't share.



benb said:


> Basically, what you're saying is that shaving some time off your journey is more important than other road users safety.



No, I have never said or implied any such thing. I drive always at a speed appropriate for the prevailing conditions. That always takes precedence over my projected time of arrival.


I love how anyone here who proffers an opinion not quite in keeping with what's normally expected becomes open to abuse based on nothing more than conjecture. What a charming community.


----------



## mangaman (23 Sep 2011)

dawesome said:


> I think Parrot's argument is more:
> 
> "I speed and have never crashed, therefore speeding is ok"



He admits to constant speeding but thinks it's safe and denied ever crashing

Except he's now admitted to crashing "a few times" in his 20 years of driving. 

He dismisses them as they were at low speed and just caused some denting and scratching.

And he doesn't seem to see the contradiction within the above.

Of course you would automatically fail the IAM test if you broke the posted limit as a cursory glance at their website shows


----------



## Parrot of Doom (23 Sep 2011)

dellzeqq said:


> it isn't a question of context - you're telling us that you speed, which is wrong. Just don't do it.



I don't agree. So please tell me, what is the speed limit on this road, in the direction linked?

http://maps.google.co.uk/?ll=53.386...d=R4eCDEOodCbP4lKV4_8nTw&cbp=12,288.22,,0,4.5


----------



## pshore (23 Sep 2011)

Parrot of Doom said:


> My attitude has kept me and everyone around me safe and sound for many years. I view speed limit signs as a guide to what is generally considered to be a maximum safe speed, but nothing more. If you've any experience driving then you'll understand that many speed limits are now set not on technical grounds, but on political grounds. A road near me, the A6144 (formerly A6144(M)) is a case in point.
> 
> You probably now think I drive around with my foot pressed to the floor everywhere I go, but you couldn't be further from the truth.
> 
> ...




I know where you are coming from Parrot but I cannot support your view. I have read Roadcraft, Motorcycle Roadcraft and Cyclecraft I am definitely a better more observant rider for it, minimising risk to me and others around me. However, there are important points missing from your argument.

Unexpected things happen. When they do, speed will be a factor.

People fear traffic, especially speeding traffic. Even if you are safe, the faster you go the less people will walk and cycle in that environment. 

Collective responsibility. Even if you are the best driver in the world, other drivers who lack your observational ability will feel justified in speeding when they see you do it.
​Motorcycle Roadcraft opens with an entire chapter on rider attitude and how it contributes to the danger. Your post comes over as one with attitude.


----------



## Dan_h (23 Sep 2011)

> Pedal reflectors and pavement cycling do not feature as a significant factor in fatal RTCs.




I believe that pavement cycling actually DOES feature as a statistically significant factor in RTCs, I would go and look up the statistics, but I only have a few minutes of lunch break left and this is probably the wrong thread for it anyway!


----------



## StuartG (23 Sep 2011)

Parrot of Doom said:


> d yet, I've never had a medium or high-speed accident. In all my years of driving I've had a few sub-5mph collisions that resulted in a scraped panel or dented wing, but not now for many years.


The statistical fallacy. If you had a fatal collision you wouldn't be writing this. If you had a serious collision which you were in part responsible for - you couldn't say this. You somehow believe that you are uniquely put apart from the risk arising from your behaviour.

You have been lucky. We have too. Trading on luck on the road is even more dangerous than in the casino. Doesn't it strike you that the evidence and almost everybody here points to you being wrong?

That's why you should be banned. Your inability to judge risk and your woeful defiance of the evidence you find inconvenient.


----------



## Buddfox (23 Sep 2011)

Run for cover people, the 'holier than thou' CycleChat brigade is on the loose again!


----------



## Parrot of Doom (23 Sep 2011)

mangaman said:


> He admits to constant speeding but thinks it's safe and denied ever crashing



I do not speed "constant[ly]", and have said no such thing.




mangaman said:


> Except he's now admitted to crashing "a few times" in his 20 years of driving.



Those accidents were early in my driving career, and were caused by a lack of observation, not an excess of speed.



mangaman said:


> Of course you would automatically fail the IAM test if you broke the posted limit as a cursory glance at their website shows



Utter, utter nonsense, and spoken by someone who clearly has no knowledge or understanding of the IAM course or its test. On my test, when approaching the M56 junction south onto the A556, which at the time had an immediate 30mph drop in the speed limit onto the slip road, my tester agreed with me that it could be dangerous. I ignored it for a good 500 yards before slowing for the bend. Guess what, no mention of that was made in my assessment, and I passed. If you must know, I was chided for not covering the brake pedal while approaching certain hazards, a flaw in my driving that I quickly fixed.


----------



## Wankelschrauben (23 Sep 2011)

Dan_h said:


> Nope, the Corkery v Carpenter 1951 ruling applied to the use of the word "carriage" this was changed in the Road Traffic Act 1984 to be "motor vehicle" along with a definition of what constitutes a motor vehicle. Also I didn't say that you cant be drunk in charge of a bicycle only that the standard by which this is judged is not the legal alchohol limit but your ability to safely operate it.



Really? 

You know the term "carriage" was applied in case law to a bicycle as early as 1879, Taylor Vs. Goodwin under the licensing act 1872.

The main consideration of Corkery Vs. Carpenter 1951 is not infact the use of the word carriage, although it is a rather fitting case for this discussion, but rather that application of the "mischief rule" under the rules of interpretation.

S.30 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 says it is an offence for a person to ride a cycle on a road whilst unfit to ride under the influence of drink or drugs.

It may be argued that one could maintain control of a bicycle whilst under the influence of a drink or drug, however, one could also maintain control of a car whilst under those influences also.

To suggest that only those who are affected to such an extent as to be incapable of having proper control of their chosen vehicle is not applicable.

The intent of the statute is to prevent, via a limit of intoxication, one from being in charge of a vehicle on a road or public place and therfore, by applying the rules of interpretation to the law, as set in the case of Corkery Vs Carpenter 1951, a judge can interpret statute to maintain it's original intent.


----------



## Buddfox (23 Sep 2011)

Wankelschrauben said:


> Really?
> 
> You know the term "carriage" was applied in case law to a bicycle as early as 1879, Taylor Vs. Goodwin under the licensing act 1872.
> 
> ...



I'm not familiar with the detail, but isn't the point that the blood/alcohol limit which is applied to drivers of cars, motorbikes etc. is not applicable to cyclists? i.e. if you're drunk on a bike, they can't ding you if you fail a breathalizer (sp?) test, it's down to the judgement of the officer as to whether you are too drunk to cycle properly.

If it's the former, the police should get out in London on a Friday and Saturday night - drunks on Boris Bikes abound!


----------



## benb (23 Sep 2011)

Parrot of Doom said:


> In which case every single emergency vehicle drives dangerously. It's a nonsense statement of course, and obviously I don't have the same experience or qualifications as a driver of an emergency vehicle, but it is entirely possible to exceed the posted limit and still drive safely. The fact that many, many limits in this country have been reduced does not suddenly make people who still drive on those affected roads at speeds once considered acceptable, "dangerous".



Fatuous claptrap. They are trained to drive at those speeds, and have lights and sirens to warn other road users.
Maybe the limits were reduced precisely because the previous limit was dangerous, did you consider that?



> So your solution is to focus not on the primary contributory factor in any accident, but on secondary factors? I'm afraid then that we'll never agree on this. You have your point of view, I respect that, but it's one I don't share.



Accidents will always happen. We should take a broad approach to reducing them, or reducing their impact. I'm focussing on speed here, because that's what the thread is about! If you want to discuss poor observation, which I agree is a significant problem, then that's a subject for another thread. You haven't satisfactorily responded to my point that increase in speed will by definition make an accident both more likely and more serious.




> I love how anyone here who proffers an opinion not quite in keeping with what's normally expected becomes open to abuse based on nothing more than conjecture. What a charming community.




I think you'll find that we just have no patience for people who excuse dangerous driving.
Well if you don't like it, you know what to do.


----------



## mickle (23 Sep 2011)

Parrot of Doom said:


> So I'm an idiot, which makes someone like you, who has never met me or seen me drive...what, exactly? Prejudiced, perhaps? Ignored, certainly.



Idiots like you. Which isn't calling you an idiot. The speed limit is a line over which you must not cross. If the speed limit (the clue is in the name) is used as a guide then there is no line. Which is why the majority of people I encounter on my commute routinely drive too fast. Idiotic behaviour.

Exceeding the speed limit is so routine that it has become normalised. I don't give a flying f*** how good a driver you imagine yourself to be - on any road where you are likely to encounter more vulnerable road users you should be driving at less than the speed limit. End of.


----------



## mangaman (23 Sep 2011)

Parrot of Doom said:


> Utter, utter nonsense, and spoken by someone who clearly has no knowledge or understanding of the IAM course or its test. On my test, when approaching the M56 junction south onto the A556, which at the time had an immediate 30mph drop in the speed limit onto the slip road, my tester agreed with me that it could be dangerous. I ignored it for a good 500 yards before slowing for the bend. Guess what, no mention of that was made in my assessment, and I passed. If you must know, I was chided for not covering the brake pedal while approaching certain hazards, a flaw in my driving that I quickly fixed.



Look on the IAM website 

http://www.iam.org.uk/the_advanced_test/whattheexaminerexpects.html

and look at progress.

The posted limit is a limit but a target but you should not exceed it.

My choice is to believe them or your single anacdote.

I know which I believe.


----------



## Parrot of Doom (23 Sep 2011)

pshore said:


> I know where you are coming from Parrot but I cannot support your view. I have read Roadcraft, Motorcycle Roadcraft and Cyclecraft I am definitely a better more observant rider for it, minimising risk to me and others around me. However, there are important points missing from your argument.
> 
> Unexpected things happen. When they do, speed will be a factor.
> 
> ...



Thankyou for bringing some sanity to this discussion. I completely agree with most of the points you've made, which is why you'll find me crawling along at 10mph through residential streets filled with parked cars, and why you'll find a queue of angry motorists behind me as I wait patiently behind the cyclist pootling along between pinch points, or why I'll be the one doing 30mph along a foggy motorway. Observation and anticipation are key elements of safe driving. Speed is another, but I believe that years of educating people at the school of "obey the speed limit = safe" isn't constructive. People have become hung up on speed, I believe at the cost of concentration and anticipation.


Of course unexpected things happen, part of driving safely is to anticipate those things. A ball popping out from behind a car may mean a child will follow shortly. A dark country lane at night may be a route used by deer or sheep. Some people here don't seem to understand that someone who exceeds the speed limit cannot factor these possibilities into his driving. Maybe that belies their driving experience, I don't know.

As far as collective responsibility goes, I don't believe I'm responsible for the behaviour of other road users. If I encounter an obstruction around which the cars in front of me are driving, thereby blocking my view of oncoming traffic, or a hazardous junction, I will wait until I know it's clear to proceed. It isn't right to blame others for your own mistakes. Going down that line leads to people blocking overtakes by accelerating to close the gap, an insanely dangerous manoeuvre.


----------



## Buddfox (23 Sep 2011)

mickle said:


> Exceeding the speed limit is so routine that it has become normalised. I don't give a flying f*** how good a driver you imagine yourself to be - on any road where you are likely to encounter more vulnerable road users you should be driving at less than the speed limit. End of.



Just so I'm clear, does this mean if you're on a road where you're not likely to encounter more vulnerable road users it's OK to drive above the speed limit? Isn't that the point Parrot of Doom is making?

The original statement of breaking the speed limit every day _appears_ to have been interpreted as if it is happening only in a 30mph zone. Which might be not be the case. When I find myself on the M4 in South Wales at 2am, for example, I'm unlikely to stick to 70mph as I'll be the only car on the road. I assume we're not saying this is the same as driving at 35mph in a 30 zone in a built up area?


----------



## Wankelschrauben (23 Sep 2011)

Buddfox said:


> I'm not familiar with the detail, but isn't the point that the blood/alcohol limit which is applied to drivers of cars, motorbikes etc. is not applicable to cyclists? i.e. if you're drunk on a bike, they can't ding you if you fail a breathalizer (sp?) test, it's down to the judgement of the officer as to whether you are too drunk to cycle properly.
> 
> If it's the former, the police should get out in London on a Friday and Saturday night - drunks on Boris Bikes abound!




I am merely stating that laws can be and have been interpreted by judges in a manner they see fit with regards to cyclists.

Cyclists are not beyond the rules of the road and cyclists should therfore not cycle as if they are.


----------



## StuartG (23 Sep 2011)

Parrot of Doom said:


> Utter, utter nonsense, and spoken by someone who clearly has no knowledge or understanding of the IAM course or its test. On my test, when approaching the M56 junction south onto the A556, which at the time had an immediate 30mph drop in the speed limit onto the slip road, my tester agreed with me that it could be dangerous.


Just as he or anybody else would agree to me proceeding deliberately through a red light if there was a fire engine behind.

So there was insufficient distance to slow safely between seeing the sign and entering the zone. Fine. That's why we see an increasing number of advance signs or intermediary (50/40) restrictions so you don't have to do it. And you wouldn't next time when you know its there would you?

Arguing a general behaviour (treat speed limits as a guide) from the exceptional does suggest you really are flapping in the wind on this one.

Anyway bye-bye. I see you haven't yet posted your registration so I won't be able to wave/take cover when you pass but do troll on ... but without me.


----------



## Buddfox (23 Sep 2011)

Wankelschrauben said:


> I am merely stating that laws can be and have been interpreted by judges in a manner they see fit with regards to cyclists.
> 
> Cyclists are not beyond the rules of the road and cyclists should therfore not cycle as if they are.



Got it - and if it was implied, wasn't questioning the argument, just trying to understand better how it might work. Although dangerous, Boris Bikes late at night in London can be quite entertaining to observe!


----------



## Dan_h (23 Sep 2011)

> I'm not familiar with the detail, but isn't the point that the blood/alcohol limit which is applied to drivers of cars, motorbikes etc. is not applicable to cyclists? i.e. if you're drunk on a bike, they can't ding you if you fail a breathalizer (sp?) test, it's down to the judgement of the officer as to whether you are too drunk to cycle properly.
> 
> If it's the former, the police should get out in London on a Friday and Saturday night - drunks on Boris Bikes abound!




Yes, that is exactly what I was trying (rather ineloquently perhaps) to say!


Mind you I am not sure how relevant this all is, I have a 14 mile commute, and there is no where that I can think of that I could break the speed limit if I wanted to. The 20mph sections tend to have lots of queueing cars and it would have to be a particularly steep downhill for me to break 30 or 40! The law about cycling while drunk also seems academic, not wanting to die there is no way that I am sticking myself in front of any speeding motorists without being as alert as possible!


----------



## Parrot of Doom (23 Sep 2011)

benb said:


> Fatuous claptrap. They are trained to drive at those speeds, and have lights and sirens to warn other road users.
> Maybe the limits were reduced precisely because the previous limit was dangerous, did you consider that?



I did say that I don't share their experience or qualifications. Did you miss that? Perhaps it was hidden under the froth of indignation which appears to be dribbling down your monitor.

I know of at least one road local to me where the speed limit was reduced by 20mph for no other reason than the rules on setting speed limits changed, allowing the highways agency to look at the road's average speed, and not it's 85th percentile speed. The change had nothing to do with safety, being made on what is a remarkably safe road.



mangaman said:


> Accidents will always happen. We should take a broad approach to reducing them, or reducing their impact. I'm focussing on speed here, because that's what the thread is about! If you want to discuss poor observation, which I agree is a significant problem, then that's a subject for another thread. You haven't satisfactorily responded to my point that increase in speed will by definition make an accident both more likely and more serious.



Of course increased speed will make any accident more serious, I don't disagree with you there. What I disagree with is the government's emphasis on reducing speed as a way of making the roads safer, instead of improving driving standards.

Just to make the point, I believe that there are nowhere near enough traffic police on duty on our roads. I'd support many thousands more. And while I'm on the subject, most traffic police will not prosecute for minor infringements of the speed limit. My experience tells me that most motorway cops, for instance, are more interested in those people who don't notice the huge white Volvo that's been behind them the last 30 seconds while they've been doing 90mph in the outside lane.



mangaman said:


> I think you'll find that we just have no patience for people who excuse dangerous driving.
> Well if you don't like it, you know what to do.



I have not, do not, and never will excuse dangerous driving. Please do me a favour, don't ever try to suggest that I do.


----------



## mickle (23 Sep 2011)

Buddfox said:


> Just so I'm clear, does this mean if you're on a road where you're not likely to encounter more vulnerable road users it's OK to drive above the speed limit? Isn't that the point Parrot of Doom is making?
> 
> The original statement of breaking the speed limit every day _appears_ to have been interpreted as if it is happening only in a 30mph zone. Which might be not be the case. When I find myself on the M4 in South Wales at 2am, for example, I'm unlikely to stick to 70mph as I'll be the only car on the road. I assume we're not saying this is the same as driving at 35mph in a 30 zone in a built up area?



Absolutely.


----------



## dawesome (23 Sep 2011)

Dan_h said:


> I believe that pavement cycling actually DOES feature as a statistically significant factor in RTCs, I would go and look up the statistics, but I only have a few minutes of lunch break left and this is probably the wrong thread for it anyway!



Then you'd be wrong:


In London between 2001-05 there were 17 pedestrians killed by motor 
vehicles on pavements or verges, and not a single cyclist. 

http://www.ctc.org.uk/resources/campaigns/0911_CP_RLJ-pavement_brf.pdf


----------



## jds_1981 (23 Sep 2011)

dawesome said:


> Nope, it's a silly straw man, nobody's proposed making the speed limit 5mph for cyclists and it will never happen. The default speed limit for all residential streets should be 20mph, the evidence, which you've first claimed was "biased" and then ignored clearly demonstrates this.



I think I fairly well demonstrated that the evidence that I referred to was biased. So I don't care to rehash it (although I don't understand your point as to why an intermediary year was used when there was a graph above with a different figure where a 'better' comparison with the country could be made - which in this case didn't show such a great improvement.)

Your other point you misunderstand my point once more. Why are you arguing for a 20mph limit, as opposed to 10, or 5? Why not then apply this to things other than cars? I've seen cyclist and joggers hit pedestrians before, when they were traveling below 20.
I think that either you've considered it before & you've decided that the number of accidents and deaths that happen at 20mph are acceptable, or you're working on an emotional point that you haven't considered well. If the former, why 20, if the latter, perhaps you need to consider your 20mph limit more?


----------



## dawesome (23 Sep 2011)

Parrot of Doom said:


> Utter, utter nonsense, and spoken by someone who clearly has no knowledge or understanding of the IAM course or its test. On my test, when approaching the M56 junction south onto the A556, which at the time had an immediate 30mph drop in the speed limit onto the slip road, my tester agreed with me that it could be dangerous. I ignored it for a good 500 yards before slowing for the bend. Guess what, no mention of that was made in my assessment, and I passed. If you must know, I was chided for not covering the brake pedal while approaching certain hazards, a flaw in my driving that I quickly fixed.



Again with the unverifiable anecdotes, flatly contradicted by the IAM's website.

How's it going with the evidence you were getting that someone doing 28 in a 30 zone on their driving test would fail.


----------



## Dan_h (23 Sep 2011)

> Then you'd be wrong:
> 
> 
> In London between 2001-05 there were 17 pedestrians killed by motor
> ...



Fair enough, I stand corrected!


----------



## benb (23 Sep 2011)

Parrot of Doom said:


> I did say that I don't share their experience or qualifications. Did you miss that? Perhaps it was hidden under the froth of indignation which appears to be dribbling down your monitor.



So you accept that you are not trained or qualified to exceed the speed limit, but do so anyway?




> I know of at least one road local to me where the speed limit was reduced by 20mph for no other reason than the rules on setting speed limits changed, allowing the highways agency to look at the road's average speed, and not it's 85th percentile speed. The change had nothing to do with safety, being made on what is a remarkably safe road.



Says you. I think I'd rather trust people actually qualified in road safety and planning to make those decisions, not someone who treats speed limits with contempt.



> Of course increased speed will make any accident more serious, I don't disagree with you there. What I disagree with is the government's emphasis on reducing speed as a way of making the roads safer, instead of improving driving standards.
> 
> Just to make the point, I believe that there are nowhere near enough traffic police on duty on our roads. I'd support many thousands more. And while I'm on the subject, most traffic police will not prosecute for minor infringements of the speed limit. My experience tells me that most motorway cops, for instance, are more interested in those people who don't notice the huge white Volvo that's been behind them the last 30 seconds while they've been doing 90mph in the outside lane.



At last we agree on something - we should be reducing speeds *and* improving driving standards. In fact the former is part of the latter.



> I have not, do not, and never will excuse dangerous driving. Please do me a favour, don't ever try to suggest that I do.



I will. You have excused excess speed, which is dangerous whether you say it is or not.


----------



## dawesome (23 Sep 2011)

Parrot of Doom said:


> If you've any experience driving then you'll understand that many speed limits are now set not on technical grounds, but on political grounds.






Parrot of Doom said:


> I never said that politicians set speed limits


----------



## mangaman (23 Sep 2011)

Parrot of Doom said:


> I did say that I don't share their experience or qualifications. Did you miss that? Perhaps it was hidden under the froth of indignation which appears to be dribbling down your monitor.
> 
> I know of at least one road local to me where the speed limit was reduced by 20mph for no other reason than the rules on setting speed limits changed, allowing the highways agency to look at the road's average speed, and not it's 85th percentile speed. The change had nothing to do with safety, being made on what is a remarkably safe road.
> 
> ...




Can you not put my name to lengthy quotes I didn't make - ben did.

I thought your observational skills were excellant.


----------



## Buddfox (23 Sep 2011)

dawesome said:


>



Am I the only one that thinks things can be done for political reasons but not by politicians? Isn't that obvious?


----------



## Nigel-YZ1 (23 Sep 2011)

Just a quick question: How are we going to enforce this speed limit?


----------



## jds_1981 (23 Sep 2011)

Buddfox said:


> Am I the only one that thinks things can be done for political reasons but not by politicians? Isn't that obvious?



You mean like scientists on the government drug advice committee traditionally never contradicting government policy? 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2009/11/why_was_david_nutt_sacked.html


----------



## gaz (23 Sep 2011)

Nigel-YZ1 said:


> Just a quick question: How are we going to enforce this speed limit?



Just like we do with motor vehicles, by largely ignoring it.


----------



## MacB (23 Sep 2011)

Nigel-YZ1 said:


> Just a quick question: How are we going to enforce this speed limit?



That's the easy bit, inbuilt black box limiter for every car, manadatory on new builds and retrofit on old. Each speed sign that denotes a speed limit change also has a transmitter sending that data to your car. Overlay this with satnav tech as a backup/over ride, just think, a stop signal could be transmitted by a police car to a fleeing car.

Cost for this is funded by taxpayers, car users and the insurance industry.


----------



## dellzeqq (23 Sep 2011)

Parrot of Doom said:


> I don't agree. So please tell me, what is the speed limit on this road, in the direction linked?


I'm not asking you to agree. I'm telling you not to do it.


----------



## MacB (23 Sep 2011)

[QUOTE 1554885"]
Which will never happen, because too many political decisions are made on road policy.
[/quote]


I'm not convinced, we've already got time limitations for HGV drivers and reduced insurance premiums for young drivers prepared to install certain technology. It's not a big step from where we are now.


----------



## MacB (23 Sep 2011)

[QUOTE 1554887"]
I hope you're right, but don't forget all the War on Motorists nonsense.
[/quote]

true, and I'm more hopeful than certain, but I do know I'd jump at the opportunity for my car.


----------



## Buddfox (23 Sep 2011)

MacB said:


> true, and I'm more hopeful than certain, but I do know I'd jump at the opportunity for my car.



The carrot and stick approach as already mentioned is the most likely route - you get cheaper insurance if you install the kit. That will soon see it in the majority of insured cars. Now, of course the sorts of drivers that put this kit in are the ones arguably less likely to break the speed limits. However, once you get more than 50% of the cars with this stuff in, it's a much easier decision to make it compulsory.

I think we'll have it within ten years. Question is, how long til we have self-driving cars? Google are already test-driving a prototype.


----------



## MacB (23 Sep 2011)

Buddfox said:


> The carrot and stick approach as already mentioned is the most likely route - you get cheaper insurance if you install the kit. That will soon see it in the majority of insured cars. Now, of course the sorts of drivers that put this kit in are the ones arguably less likely to break the speed limits. However, once you get more than 50% of the cars with this stuff in, it's a much easier decision to make it compulsory.
> 
> I think we'll have it within ten years. *Question is, how long til we have self-driving cars? Google are already test-driving a prototype*.



No idea but there will be a place in history for the first accident victim of a self drive car


----------



## Moodyman (23 Sep 2011)

I've not read all the posts so might have been covered already, but to the OP, how will they enforce this as many bikes don't have speedometers?


----------



## Wankelschrauben (23 Sep 2011)

Buddfox said:


> The carrot and stick approach as already mentioned is the most likely route - you get cheaper insurance if you install the kit. That will soon see it in the majority of insured cars. Now, of course the sorts of drivers that put this kit in are the ones arguably less likely to break the speed limits. However, once you get more than 50% of the cars with this stuff in, it's a much easier decision to make it compulsory.
> 
> I think we'll have it within ten years. Question is, how long til we have self-driving cars? Google are already test-driving a prototype.




What is this kit that reduces insurance premiums?

Seriously, my insurance premium is absoultely extortionate, I'm 25 with full no claims discount and no points living in a grade C area.

Even the smallest engined cars are expensive to insure.


----------



## dellzeqq (23 Sep 2011)

I wonder how much Parrot of Doom pays for his insurance?


----------



## Buddfox (23 Sep 2011)

Reduce insurance premia


----------



## dawesome (23 Sep 2011)

Buddfox said:


> Reduce insurance premia



That looks like it's been badly translated and:

_One of the important new safety devices is ESC, which is recommended by the Department for Transport. The new safety device will lower the number of accident that is why it will be made compulsory next year by the Department for Transport._


Is that true?


----------



## Buddfox (23 Sep 2011)

Who knows, I just googled it to see if I could find anything helpful. MacB mentioned that something like this was already in place and it rang a bell, so I linked the first thing I found!


----------



## dawesome (23 Sep 2011)

I have heard some insurance companies allow a discount for tracking devices that monitor speed and time of use (between midnight and 3am the risk for young drivers is SEVENTEEN times higher than for average drivers. Apparently the biggest single killer of teenage girls in this country is their boyfriend's driving).


----------



## jds_1981 (23 Sep 2011)

dawesome said:


> I have heard some insurance companies allow a discount for tracking devices that monitor speed and time of use (between midnight and 3am the risk for young drivers is SEVENTEEN times higher than for average drivers. Apparently the biggest single killer of teenage girls in this country is their boyfriend's driving).



On first point I recently saw a story which suggested that places where they were stopped from driving at a young age generally just pushed the accidents back to a later age (suggesting it came down to experience.)

Second point is absolutely wrong. You're paraphrasing a senior police official who actually said something along the lines of "I've been told that the biggest kill of". We then did research into it on another forum and showed the likelihood of this 'fact' being true to be negligible..


----------



## Mad at urage (23 Sep 2011)

Parrot of Doom said:


> As a driver of 20-odd years and someone who took and passed the IAM course, I think my driving isn't too bad. Five seconds was, of course, an exaggeration, but I do not believe that rigid enforcement of speed limits is beneficial to road safety.
> 
> BTW,* I break the speed limit all the time - pretty much every day.* _Sometimes I drive massively under the speed limit. I use my observation to judge what is a safe speed, not a number on a stick._ Clean licence too, and always has been.


As a driver of (counts on fingers due to boxing-related injury  ...) some 30 years and a full member of IAM (meaning I've passed their test) who has periodically taken tests with other advanced driving institutions (entirely voluntarily), I would like to distance myself a Very Long Way from the bolded sentence.

Unfortunately since IAM is primarily a driving club rather than the road safety organisation* which it attempts to project an image of, there are many IAM members who share this view  !

The italicised text is of course true, as is this:



Parrot of Doom said:


> ... speed limit signs as a guide to what is generally considered to be a maximum safe speed, but nothing more. ...
> There are many, many aspects to safe driving, and speed is one of the least significant.


Speed limits are indeed "a guide to what is generally considered to be a maximum safe speed" yes... maximum, as in not to be exceeded. A safe driver judges the correct speed for the conditions up to and not exceeding that maximum.
Attitude to other road users is a further aspect of safety, and attitude to the *limits* that society has set on our permitted speed is another. Having the attitude "I know better than those setting the limits" is in itself a dangerous way to drive.



Parrot of Doom said:


> Really, so what's the speed limit here:
> 
> http://maps.google.c...,281.58,,0,6.44


If that's the place I'm thinking of (no change of speed limit from 40mph road), invalid use of what looks like 30mph repeater sized sign, then it's 40mph: However given the obvious intention for a 30mph limit, the expectations of the other users of that road and the obstacles to clear vision, I'd keep well below 30 there, nearer 20 passing the kerbless shelter and blind entrance on the right and slowing as I approached the parked cars.



Parrot of Doom said:


> When I took my driving test Mikey, I exceeded the speed limit. It was expected of you. Driving at 28mph in a clear, wide, 30 zone would be more likely to achieve a fail as you would be deemed to be holding up the flow of traffic.
> 
> You might not believe me but that's how I was taught, that's how I took my test, and that's one of the reasons why I passed without comment.
> 
> So what's the speed limit on the road I posted? If you don't know, you shouldn't be on the road.


You claim to have driven for 20 years, if the above is correct then pass standards certainly fell in the ten years between me taking my test and you doing taking yours. Exceeding the speed limit would certainly have been a fail for me.


dawesome said:


> ...
> This is a common argument among the pro-speeding lobby, and as I said it completely ignores the fact that THERE DOESN'T HAVE TO BE AN ACCIDENT FOR SPEEDING TO BE ANTI-SOCIAL.
> ...



Absobloodylutely!



Parrot of Doom said:


> Thankyou for bringing some sanity to this discussion. I completely agree with most of the points you've made, which is why _you'll find me crawling along at 10mph through residential streets filled with parked cars, and why you'll find a queue of angry motorists behind me as I wait patiently behind the cyclist pootling along between pinch points, or why I'll be the one doing 30mph along a foggy motorway. Observation and anticipation are key elements of safe driving. Speed is another, but I believe that years of educating people at the school of "obey the speed limit = safe" isn't constructive. People have become hung up on speed, I believe at the cost of concentration and anticipation.
> 
> 
> Of course unexpected things happen, part of driving safely is to anticipate those things. A ball popping out from behind a car may mean a child will follow shortly. A dark country lane at night may be a route used by deer or sheep. _Some people here don't seem to understand that someone who exceeds the speed limit cannot factor these possibilities into his driving. Maybe that belies their driving experience, I don't know.
> ...


_Excellent, great, fantastic_ but it still does not justify the daily breaking the speed *limit*.

*If the IAM was a safety organisation, its advanced driving courses would concentrate on the conditions that most drivers face and have difficulty with on a daily basis: Crowded urban roads with a busy landscape, many interactions with vulnerable road users, complex junctions ... oh and occasional motorways (which frighten many drivers of my acquaintance). Instead IME the majority of its training and the majority of its online chat, is about how to drive at good speed on the open road. There's nothing in fact wrong (IMO) with the way it trains for this (PoD's "daily" speeding not withstanding), as good forward observation, planning and systematic driving is useful anywhere; but the concentration on open roads shows its 'car club' origins and mind set.


----------



## Mad at urage (23 Sep 2011)

On topic, I thoroughly approve of 20mph limits in all residential areas. One problem the UK does have though is that many trunk roads, often still the only through roads between major centres have houses either side. Often (but not always) these are well set back from the carriageway, but to treat all these as 20mph residential areas would be economically disruptive (and therefore unfairly penalise) the people living in the conurbations accessed by these roads. There would therefore need to be some systematic way of delineating true residential areas from major roads which people decide to live beside ('voluntarily' accepting the inconvenience of traffic).


----------



## Parrot of Doom (23 Sep 2011)

benb said:


> So you accept that you are not trained or qualified to exceed the speed limit, but do so anyway?



I believe I am more than qualified enough to gauge what speed is or is not safe in any given circumstance. People do it all the time, in whatever fashion they travel. I just don't buy the supposition that exceeding the speed limit is automatically dangerous.



benb said:


> Says you. I think I'd rather trust people actually qualified in road safety and planning to make those decisions, not someone who treats speed limits with contempt.



Do you trust the same people when it comes to planning cycle lanes, or cycling infrastructure? If not, then why? They're "qualified in road safety and planning", are they not?



benb said:


> At last we agree on something - we should be reducing speeds *and* improving driving standards. In fact the former is part of the latter.



I agree we should improve driving standards. We just differ on how to go about that, that's all. Please stop assuming that I'm some kind of lunatic.



benb said:


> I will. You have excused excess speed, which is dangerous whether you say it is or not.



There's a very big difference between inappropriate speed and excess speed.


----------



## Parrot of Doom (23 Sep 2011)

dellzeqq said:


> I'm not asking you to agree. I'm telling you not to do it.




Your instructions mean nothing to me. Do you know what the speed limit is on the section of road I linked?


----------



## Parrot of Doom (23 Sep 2011)

dellzeqq said:


> I wonder how much Parrot of Doom pays for his insurance?



Why?


----------



## MacB (23 Sep 2011)

Parrot of Doom said:


> There's a very big difference between inappropriate speed and excess speed.



yep the first isn't necessarily illegal, at least not until after an accident investigation, but the second is always illegal.

I don't give a flying **** how good a driver you think you are or how many different ways you try to justify your actions, you should be off the road.


----------



## Parrot of Doom (23 Sep 2011)

Mad@urage said:


> If that's the place I'm thinking of (no change of speed limit from 40mph road), invalid use of what looks like 30mph repeater sized sign, then it's 40mph: However given the obvious intention for a 30mph limit, the expectations of the other users of that road and the obstacles to clear vision, I'd keep well below 30 there, nearer 20 passing the kerbless shelter and blind entrance on the right and slowing as I approached the parked cars.



I posted that link because someone stated that any driver who did not know the speed limit for a given section of road was undeserving of his licence. It is a stupid position to take.

Drivers should first and foremost rely on their skills of observation to judge what is a safe speed. They should not refer to the number on a stick and set their speed according to that. How many people do you know who see a NSL sign and immediately speed up? That's the dangerous behaviour here.


People seem to be assuming that I drive at warp speed everywhere I go. It's the same flawed line of thinking that some motorists take when presuming that "all cyclists ignore red lights and don't pay road tax".

Dig just a bit beneath the surface and one finds the same silly stereotypes and prejudices, no matter where one goes.


----------



## Parrot of Doom (23 Sep 2011)

MacB said:


> yep the first isn't necessarily illegal, at least not until after an accident investigation, but the second is always illegal.
> 
> I don't give a flying **** how good a driver you think you are or how many different ways you try to justify your actions, you should be off the road.



You know nothing about me and are in no position to make such judgements. You're obviously prejudiced.

Oh and User I remember you from the old Cycling+ forums. I see you've changed little, and shall therefore be ignoring you here, as I eventually decided to do there.


----------



## benb (23 Sep 2011)

Parrot of Doom said:


> I believe I am more than qualified enough to gauge what speed is or is not safe in any given circumstance. People do it all the time, in whatever fashion they travel. I just don't buy the supposition that exceeding the speed limit is automatically dangerous.



Then you're contemptible and arrogant.




> I agree we should improve driving standards. We just differ on how to go about that, that's all. Please stop assuming that I'm some kind of lunatic.



I'll stop assuming that when you stop giving that impression.




> There's a very big difference between inappropriate speed and excess speed.



You can drive dangerously and still be within the speed limit, I agree. I have never said that driving < speed limit = safe
Going over the speed limit is selfish, antisocial, and almost always dangerous. (I say almost, otherwise you'll come back with some scenario about a deserted motorway - how often does that occur?)

You still haven't adequately responded to my point that increases in speed will always make accidents more likely and more severe.


----------



## BentMikey (23 Sep 2011)

It's not a prejudice or stereotype, I just don't want you driving anywhere near me when you think you have better judgement on speed limits than road planners. Speed limits are almost always set too high anyway due to moton pressure, so when you admit you're often speeding you're admitting to bad judgement on your part.

...and let's not get into silly debates on speed limit legal technicalities. The clear intention for the speed limit on that link you posted is obvious. If you don't know what the speed limit is on the road you're on, then your observation is as poor as your judgement.


----------



## Parrot of Doom (23 Sep 2011)

benb said:


> Then you're contemptible and arrogant.



And you're not very intelligent and rather stupid. See where this is going?



benb said:


> I'll stop assuming that when you stop giving that impression.



I suggest you learn the difference between imply and infer.



benb said:


> You can drive dangerously and still be within the speed limit, I agree. I have never said that driving < speed limit = safe
> Going over the speed limit is selfish, antisocial, and almost always dangerous. (I say almost, otherwise you'll come back with some scenario about a deserted motorway - how often does that occur?)
> 
> You still haven't adequately responded to my point that increases in speed will always make accidents more likely and more severe.



I disagree, but at least I don't then resort to personal insults to get my point across. Oh and I do not agree with your last point, as it suggests that I drive at inappropriate speeds. I do not.


----------



## benb (23 Sep 2011)

Parrot of Doom said:


> Drivers should first and foremost rely on their skills of observation to judge what is a safe speed. They should not refer to the number on a stick and set their speed according to that. How many people do you know who see a NSL sign and immediately speed up? That's the dangerous behaviour here.



Nice strawman. No-one has said that drivers should always drive *at *the speed limit, but they should always drive *below *it.
The speed limit is the *maximum *safe speed. The actual safe speed is very often lower.

I will grant that, in some limited situations, someone can exceed the speed limit without much additional risk (note any increase in speed is by definition more dangerous) but for some odd reason we have decided that we can't rely on people's judgement for that. I wonder why?


----------



## benb (23 Sep 2011)

Parrot of Doom said:


> And you're not very intelligent and rather stupid. See where this is going?
> 
> ...
> 
> at least I don't then resort to personal insults to get my point across.



My irony meter just exploded.


----------



## Parrot of Doom (23 Sep 2011)

BentMikey said:


> It's not a prejudice or stereotype, I just don't want you driving anywhere near me when you think you have better judgement on speed limits than road planners. Speed limits are almost always set too high anyway due to moton pressure, so when you admit you're often speeding you're admitting to bad judgement on your part.
> 
> ...and let's not get into silly debates on speed limit legal technicalities. The clear intention for the speed limit on that link you posted is obvious. If you don't know what the speed limit is on the road you're on, then your observation is as poor as your judgement.



Mikey I watch and enjoy your videos on Youtube, but several times I have watched you ignore some of the rules of the road, particularly with regard to entering ASLs, or travelling across pedestrian crossings that aren't clear. Were you to do either of those things on a driving test, you'd fail.

So what makes it acceptable for you to break the rules of the road? And how is it that as an experienced road user, you do not know the speed limit on the road I posted? You're clearly knowledgeable on the subject, so why not?


----------



## Parrot of Doom (23 Sep 2011)

benb said:


> My irony meter just exploded.



As did mine. Do you understand that I was pointing out how stupid it is to start insulting someone to try and get your point across? Obviously not.


----------



## Parrot of Doom (23 Sep 2011)

benb said:


> Nice strawman. No-one has said that drivers should always drive *at *the speed limit, but they should always drive *below *it.
> The speed limit is the *maximum *safe speed. The actual safe speed is very often lower.
> 
> I will grant that, in some limited situations, someone can exceed the speed limit without much additional risk (note any increase in speed is by definition more dangerous) but for some odd reason we have decided that we can't rely on people's judgement for that. I wonder why?



I think you'll find that most drivers will look at the number on the stick and attempt to always drive at that speed. Anyone who doesn't is subject to road rage and being overtaken.

We don't rely on people's judgements _in general_ because as a society we recognise that driving standards are inadequate. So we legislate against everyone, ignoring the fact that some motorists are generally safer than others.


----------



## Buddfox (23 Sep 2011)

benb said:


> Nice strawman. No-one has said that drivers should always drive *at *the speed limit, but they should always drive *below *it.
> The speed limit is the *maximum *safe speed. The actual safe speed is very often lower.
> 
> I will grant that, in some limited situations, someone can exceed the speed limit without much additional risk (note any increase in speed is by definition more dangerous) but for some odd reason we have decided that we can't rely on people's judgement for that. I wonder why?



Am I missing something or are you just contradicting yourself in this post? If the speed limit is the maximum safe speed, that would imply you cannot drive safely above it. But then you go on to say that there are limited circumstances when you can exceed the speed limit with only limited additional risk. Assuming that we can agree that the interpretation of safety is a scale and not a binary state of affairs, there must be circumstances when it is safe to be driving above the speed limit.

This is beginning to remind me of the endless RLJ threads. It's against the law, therefore by definition it is dangerous. Clearly this is nonsense.


----------



## Parrot of Doom (23 Sep 2011)

Anyhow, I thought this forum might be a little more enlightened. Go on most motoring forums and you'll find a sloth of idiots venting their speens at the injustice of having to navigate around cyclists. I didn't expect to come here and find the same prejudices.

I think some of you need to grow up and realise that just because someone holds a contrary opinion, that doesn't make them a fool, or worthy of verbal abuse. Enjoy your cycling, as I do. Bye.


----------



## BentMikey (23 Sep 2011)

Parrot of Doom said:


> Oh and I do not agree with your last point, as it suggests that I drive at inappropriate speeds. I do not.



Every time you exceed the speed limit, you are driving at an inappropriate speed. Your judgement is this: FAIL.


----------



## Buddfox (23 Sep 2011)

BentMikey said:


> Every time you exceed the speed limit, you are driving at an inappropriate speed. Your judgement is this: FAIL.



Come on!!! This is so obviously false! The only thing you're doing is driving at an illegal speed!


----------



## Buddfox (23 Sep 2011)

1554922 said:


> You posted on a cycling forum that you routinely exceed speed limits and are thus likely to constitute an increased threat to the lives of cyclists and you didn't expect a teensy weensy bit of a negative reaction? And you're the one with the above average perception. Well bugger me, what are the rest of you like?



This appears to be the interpretation - but the original post made no such specifications that the said speed limit breaches occurred on roads where there would be cyclists. Granted it's probable, but as I said above, everyone seems to be assuming the speed limit breaches only occur on roads where there would also be cyclists.

Either way, it doesn't really justify calling someone "contemptible", does it?


----------



## mangaman (23 Sep 2011)

jds_1981 said:


> On first point I recently saw a story which suggested that places where they were stopped from driving at a young age generally just pushed the accidents back to a later age (suggesting it came down to experience.)
> 
> Second point is absolutely wrong. You're paraphrasing a senior police official who actually said something along the lines of "I've been told that the biggest kill of". We then did research into it on another forum and showed the likelihood of this 'fact' being true to be negligible..



I'm afraid you'll have to work a bit harder to convince me that 17 year old newly qualified drivers aren't more likely to be dangerous than newly qualified 37 year olds. It's not just driving experience, it's maturity. You say you saw a story to the contrary - it would be interesting to see.

As to your second point - I didn't realised fora did "research"! Could you share your findings.

I'm not being awkward - just interested - as I have done a google search on these questions and not found much of any use.


----------



## benb (23 Sep 2011)

Parrot of Doom said:


> As did mine. Do you understand that I was pointing out how stupid it is to start insulting someone to try and get your point across? Obviously not.



Funny, I didn't think what I said was insulting, just a statement of what I thought of your driving. Maybe I should have said "Your attitude towards driving is contemptible and arrogant."


----------



## mangaman (23 Sep 2011)

1554922 said:


> You posted on a cycling forum that you routinely exceed speed limits and are thus likely to constitute an increased threat to the lives of cyclists and you didn't expect a teensy weensy bit of a negative reaction? And you're the one with the above average perception. Well bugger me, what are the rest of you like?




To right - one suspects he's an old friend of many years and many incarnations - indeed he remembers MrP from C+ so he could be one of the Swiss Trolls or Jeremy Clarkson etc (for the uninitiated, C+ forum was a war zone between speed apologists mainly from the safespeed site and Spindrift (and his many reincarnations) and MrP).

Quite fun for a while, but it tended to turn into 500 page threads with 3 posters.

BTW was the Parrot flouncing in his/her last post?

I suppose only theclaud or dell would know - that being one of their fields of expertise.


----------



## Becs (23 Sep 2011)

[QUOTE 1554918"]
There is no such thing as a safe and experienced driver who ignores posted limits. 
[/quote]

Bollocks. Loads of excellent drivers (including off duty coppers) will exceed motorway speed limits but drive completely legally and safely in built up areas. You can be safe and exceed the speed limit in certain situations, but not in the sorts of situations where they will be bringing in 20 limits. It's all about common sense and not behaving like a prat.


----------



## dawesome (23 Sep 2011)

jds_1981 said:


> On first point I recently saw a story which suggested that places where they were stopped from driving at a young age generally just pushed the accidents back to a later age (suggesting it came down to experience.)
> 
> Second point is absolutely wrong. You're paraphrasing a senior police official who actually said something along the lines of "I've been told that the biggest kill of". We then did research into it on another forum and showed the likelihood of this 'fact' being true to be negligible..



I'd like to see that research, the only caveat I'd be wary of is that the driver who kills the teenage girl is the boyfriend. It is certainly true to say that the single most common cause of premature death for young people is RTC fatalities- that's more than disease, cancers, and other accidents: Road traffic incidents are the single biggest killer of young people in the UK. This means, if you are aged 11-25 in the UK, you are more likely to be killed by traffic than being stabbed, neglected or contracting a life threatening disease:www.internationaltransportforum.org/jtrc/safety/YDpolicyBrief.pdf
It's interesting that you try to mitigate the deadly effects of speeding, may I ask which forum it was?


----------



## jds_1981 (23 Sep 2011)

mangaman said:


> I'm afraid you'll have to work a bit harder to convince me that 17 year old newly qualified drivers aren't more likely to be dangerous than newly qualified 37 year olds. It's not just driving experience, it's maturity. You say you saw a story to the contrary - it would be interesting to see.
> 
> As to your second point - I didn't realised fora did "research"! Could you share your findings.
> 
> I'm not being awkward - just interested - as I have done a google search on these questions and not found much of any use.



you'll have to wait until I get home for better responses

First one, sure I'll try & dig up the story. I've not checked the stats myself but the synopsis was as above.

second one was in the commuting part of bikeradar forum. Search function isn't coming up with anything at the moment. The policeman was Meredydd Hughes


----------



## Buddfox (23 Sep 2011)

Becs said:


> Bollocks. Loads of excellent drivers (including off duty coppers) will exceed motorway speed limits but drive completely legally and safely in built up areas. You can be safe and exceed the speed limit in certain situations, but not in the sorts of situations where they will be bringing in 20 limits. It's all about common sense and not behaving like a prat.



+1

But prepared to be told to get off the road and have your licence removed by a bunch of self-righteous people on this forum...!


----------



## Mad at urage (23 Sep 2011)

Parrot of Doom said:


> I posted that link because someone stated that any driver who did not know the speed limit for a given section of road was undeserving of his licence. It is a stupid position to take.
> 
> Drivers should first and foremost rely on their skills of observation to judge what is a safe speed. They should not refer to the number on a stick and set their speed according to that. How many people do you know who see a NSL sign and immediately speed up? That's the dangerous behaviour here.
> 
> ...


People here are taking you at your word that you daily exceed the speed limit: This is nothing to do with assuming you "drive at warp speed everywhere". You admitted an illegal activity which is correlated strongly with increased risk to others. You branded yourself.



benb said:


> Nice strawman. No-one has said that drivers should always drive *at *the speed limit, but they should always drive *below *it.
> The speed limit is the *maximum *safe speed. The actual safe speed is very often lower.
> 
> I will grant that, in some limited situations, someone can exceed the speed limit without much additional risk (note any increase in speed is by definition more dangerous) but for some odd reason we have decided that we can't rely on people's judgement for that. I wonder why?


"The speed limit is the *maximum *safe speed" - well, it is the maximum legal speed, below which you should be safely driving might be a better way of phrasing it, but I think I'm agreeing with the sense of your post  . As indicated in my reply to PoD, in the link he posted, even on a dry day the incorrectly-signed 30mph limit is not one I'd aim to be driving at! Not sure what his point actually was in posting that, because it certainly did not justify exceeding the speed limit (unless he happens to know of a 5mph limit on that stretch of road, which isn't indicated).

Now I could have posted a picture of a N.London major highway, currently undergoing repair, where there is a 40mph limit which changes to a 50mph limit, but has a single 30mph sign displayed, rather confusingly, to the left (I suspect where a slip has been removed). It's _possible_ that the limit on the nearside lane there is actually still 30, according to the paperwork ....

Back to the difficulties of 20mph limits perhaps? Is the 20 limit on Tower Bridge still in place? That seemed to be generally observed last time I crossed.


----------



## dawesome (23 Sep 2011)

Buddfox said:


> Come on!!! This is so obviously false! The only thing you're doing is driving at an illegal speed!



And bullying vulnerable road users, scaring old people, intimidating pedestrians, making more noise, being anti-social.

_Waits for the " empty road surrounded by nothingness, boundless and bare, no pedestrians, no cyclists" anecdote. _


----------



## dellzeqq (23 Sep 2011)

Parrot of Doom said:


> Your instructions mean nothing to me. Do you know what the speed limit is on the section of road I linked?


just do as you're told


----------



## benb (23 Sep 2011)

Buddfox said:


> This appears to be the interpretation - but the original post made no such specifications that the said speed limit breaches occurred on roads where there would be cyclists. Granted it's probable, but as I said above, everyone seems to be assuming the speed limit breaches only occur on roads where there would also be cyclists.
> 
> Either way, it doesn't really justify calling someone "contemptible", does it?



Yeah, well I'm sick and tired of motorists excusing dangerous driving. And regular breaking of speed limits is just that, no matter what you or the parrot might say.


----------



## dellzeqq (23 Sep 2011)

Parrot of Doom said:


> I think you'll find that most drivers will look at the number on the stick and attempt to always drive at that speed. Anyone who doesn't is subject to road rage and *being overtaken*.


..which is too much to bear?



Parrot of Doom said:


> We don't rely on people's judgements _in general_ because as a society we recognise that driving standards are inadequate. So we legislate against everyone, ignoring the fact that *some motorists are generally safer than others*.


those would be the ones that don't speed


----------



## dellzeqq (23 Sep 2011)

Buddfox said:


> Come on!!! This is so obviously false! The only thing you're doing is driving at an illegal speed!


as in......faulty judgement


----------



## mangaman (23 Sep 2011)

jds_1981 said:


> you'll have to wait until I get home for better responses
> 
> First one, sure I'll try & dig up the story. I've not checked the stats myself but the synopsis was as above.
> 
> second one was in the commuting part of bikeradar forum. Search function isn't coming up with anything at the moment. The policeman was Meredydd Hughes



Thanks


----------



## jds_1981 (23 Sep 2011)

Ah, scroll down to the greg66 post

http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=16524163&highlight=#16524163


----------



## dawesome (23 Sep 2011)

jds_1981 said:


> Ah, scroll down to the greg66 post
> 
> http://www.bikeradar...light=#16524163



Which only cover the age range 15-19, and doesn't record whether the boyfriend was driving. 

WHO forecast is that by 2015 the motor car will be the single most common killer of all children over the age of 5:

www.sarf.org.za/seminars-and-conferences/.../6%20Tom%20Bishop.pdf

It is slowly changing, attitudes are hardening, in time drivers who speed on public roads will be viewed with the same disgust as drink drivers, who actually kill fewer people than speeding drivers.


----------



## jds_1981 (23 Sep 2011)

dawesome said:


> <br>Which only cover the age range 15-19, and doesn't record whether the boyfriend was driving.


<br><br>I suspect that not many 13 or 14 year old girls are being driven around by their boyfriends...<br><br>+ <br>


> <br>The 66 car occupants are broken down into various types of accident, and&nbsp;&nbsp;whether the deceased was a driver, passenger or other (presumably&nbsp;&nbsp;unrecorded). In the 15-19 age group, of the 66 occupants, 24 were&nbsp;&nbsp;drivers, 25 were passengers and 17 were "other" <br> <br>Unless, therefore, virtually all of the accidents involving 15-19 year&nbsp;&nbsp;old girls were ones where their boyfriends were driving, and not (eg)&nbsp;&nbsp;their parents, siblings, friends, or taxi drivers, it looks&nbsp;&nbsp;overwhelmingly likely that more 15-19 year old girls were killed by&nbsp;&nbsp;their own driving than that of their boyfriends.&nbsp;&nbsp;


<br><br>Anyway, the original quote was very unsafe - an anecdote told to a policeman that is now widely reported as fact.<br><br>with edit: -<br><br>


> <span class="postbody"><br>
> Furthemore, p 250 of the pdf shows that 25 girls in this age group died
> of external accidents; p 256 shows that 23 died of intentional self
> harm; and p 42 shows that 48 dies of diseases of the nervous system and
> ...


<br><br>so if 'cancer' is a category, that would be the biggest killer.<br>


----------



## mangaman (23 Sep 2011)

jds_1981 said:


> Ah, scroll down to the greg66 post
> 
> http://www.bikeradar...light=#16524163



Interesting and I agree implies boyfriends are not the biggest cause of death in young women, so thanks.


----------



## 2Loose (23 Sep 2011)

After reading half the thread and actually sympathising with Parrot (although haven't read the latter half, so excuse me...maybe)...I can't help thinking that some speed limits are set wrongly in some areas. But I think Parrots main point was driving within the conditions and ability. Limits can be a farce in certain areas.

No reduced limits outside local schools with a large quantity of drivers treating the 30 limit as a target, despite double parked cars and a huge number of 5-10 year olds.

A thirty limit where there are no residences or even buildings for over a mile, then switching to a 40 when the environment changes to 'built up'.

A sensible (but obviously not law abiding) driver will do 60 in the 30 limit, but only 30 in the 40 limit. In my view, that makes them more observant and thoughtful than someone that sticks to both limits, regardless of the environment.

Travelling at a ton on an empty motorway is far less dangerous than sticking to a 30 limit in a built up area at ANY time imho.

Putting 20mph limits near vulnerable areas, schools, through town center's etc. is a good idea purely because not all drivers are thoughtful. Some need the instruction because they cannot be trusted to make that judgement on their own, so ultimately is a good idea. I get the impression that Parrot and other decent drivers would be driving below the usual posted limit in these areas anyway.


----------



## superbadger (23 Sep 2011)

well what a thread!!!!!. I find Parrot's 'claims,counter-claims and overall attitude' quite disturbing! . You have described yourself as a cyclist's worst nightmare!!! (my opinion) So don't have a go that you didn't say it!. However you are a cyclist too???. I Havn't quoted any of your rambling's because you are so inconsistent i wouldn't know where 2 begin? I don't wish anybody any harm but if there's any kind of 'Karma' out there then maybe one day some idiot driver who is overly-confident and 'knows best' because he has been driving since the dark ages and he also knows that speed limits are a fabrication of politicians minds nearly runs you off the road!!! And then i pray that he/she stops and gives you tons of abuse because its 'your fault!'. It would be like you arguing in the mirror wouldn't it! ... Its not all bad news though because i do offer a compliment.... Your one in a million . THANK GOD!!!!


----------



## dawesome (23 Sep 2011)

jds_1981 said:


> I suspect that not many 13 or 14 year old girls are being driven around by their boyfriends...Anyway, the original quote was very unsafe - an anecdote told to a policeman that is now widely reported as fact.<br><br>with edit:so if 'cancer' is a category, that would be the biggest killer.




When children are travelling by car the risk of serious injury or death is highest when they are aged 14 to 15, and half of all deaths and injuries occur when the driver is under 21:

www.theaa.com/.../facts_about_road_accidents_and_children.pdf


----------



## mangaman (23 Sep 2011)

dawesome said:


> Which only cover the age range 15-19, and doesn't record whether the boyfriend was driving.
> 
> WHO forecast is that by 2015 the motor car will be the single most common killer of all children over the age of 5:
> 
> ...



All fair points dawesome, but not what I asked jds.

jds' point that 17 year old boys driving are not the leading cause of death of women of that age seems reasonable.

We all agree the car is dangerous, but, like everything else, the more actual facts we have the better.

Otherwise we're in danger of sounding like bitter cyclists who want the roads to ourselves.


----------



## 2Loose (23 Sep 2011)

uhuh my spider sense is telling me that I should have read the whole thread...


----------



## mangaman (23 Sep 2011)

2Loose said:


> After reading half the thread and actually sympathising with Parrot (although haven't read the latter half, so excuse me...maybe)...I can't help thinking that some speed limits are set wrongly in some areas. But I think Parrots main point was driving within the conditions and ability. Limits can be a farce in certain areas.



No Parrot's point was the stated limit was irrelevant to him.

He admitted exceeding it on a hugely regular basis.

"Driving within the conditions" is always wheeled out - Parrot did it it repeatedly - to excuse bad driving.

In moral terms I felt Parrot was trying to say - at times, I drive slowly near a school and that gives me some sort of moral credit so I can go ballistic on twisty country roads where a lot of crashes occur, which is ridiculous.

All credible organisations - including the IAM, which Parrot claimed advanced testing on, are specific that one should never break the specified limit.

If you want to increase the limit in your locality (I can't think of a situation where anyone would want that, but that's what you seem to be implying) - then lobby the council, don't just speed.

He also started by claiming a "massive" 20 years of driving experience with no crashes.

He then revealed a number of low speed incidents - but they were alright as no damage was done.

As a driver of 38 years no crashes at all ever / no points / never stopped by PC Plod - I found him rather a joke.

As I pointed out earlier, he dismissed his low speed crashes as they didn't cause much damage, because they were at a low speed.

But he still failed to connect speed and severity of crash.

I guess he's a regular troll on cycling sites, and I'm hoping he was just having a boring Friday and picked a fight with us but is now off. He seems to have flounced.


----------



## 2Loose (23 Sep 2011)

Great summary Mangaman, I was rapidly getting the impression that I had missed something...


----------



## superbadger (23 Sep 2011)

A cyclist will give way to cars,buses,other cyclists(*) and even pedestrians...	*-unless going 4 a scalp!. Mostly for self-preservation i guess when we are talking about vehicles a damn site bigger than us! I just think that we are in general a good bunch and most vehicle drivers can be too... Yes there are exceptions... but there always is. Hmmmm i wonder who on this thread?.	We don't want to 'Parrot on' tho do we? So back 2 the topic in hand-20mph.... Nowt wrong with that! . Ok we have covered(earlier on) that it doesn't affect bikes; A decent cyclist won't go out their way 2 break a law just coz its there? (oh god.... theres a can tipped over! And its full of worms?)... As a cyclist i feel that i can see 'possible danger' way before a pedistrian or vehicle! Ok some riders have mp3/i-pod but when i use them i put it in left ear(nearside) and vol is low... We are a very responsible bunch and its very different for car drivers..... Don't attack me just yet??? A cyclist looks at most things as a 'danger' it don't matter if its 10mph or 60mph on that road.... The surface of the road,the sunken grids!(that the council never repair!!!) the odd wandering pedestrian,the flat-bed/bus at the left hand turn that you need to stay out the way of.... In a vehicle its different.... A slight prang be ok,ppl feel invincible which is scary... . I been doing other stuff while doing this post so for all i know we could be talking about the price of traffic-lights by now??? Sorry if the post doesnt quite fit but im sure it will squeeze in somewhere...


----------



## BentMikey (23 Sep 2011)

2Loose said:


> I can't help thinking that some speed limits are set wrongly in some areas. ... . Limits can be a farce in certain areas.



I must admit this is quite possible, IME limits are rarely (to the point of almost never) set too low, but they are often set too high.


----------



## mchunt (23 Sep 2011)

20mph speed limits ought to be set in urban areas to keep pedestrians safe even if people don't obey them they will probably still only do 30mph - at the moment people see a 30mph limit as permission to do 35, small difference in speed is a huge difference in survivability. 

If urban roads seem safer more people may take up cycling which would lead to even more lives saved though people being healthier and lead to savings in the NHS budget - 20mph limits are therefore an austerity measure!

However on restricted roads such as motorways and super trunk roads (A14, A1, A42) the limits should be raised more in line with those in Europe - variable limits set according to traffic and weather would be even better. Annoy drivers with 20mph in towns but give them something back on motorways.


----------



## Bman (23 Sep 2011)

BentMikey said:


> I must admit this is quite possible, IME limits are rarely (to the point of almost never) set too low, but they are often set too high.




How do we know why they are set though? There could be wildlife near the road (ducks from a pond or deer from a wood), or noise restrictions that we would be unaware of. 

I think speed limits can be broken in some situations with little added risk, just like a cyclist when they RLJ. But its not legal and not safe.


----------



## Becs (23 Sep 2011)

Bongman said:


> How do we know why they are set though? There could be wildlife near the road (ducks from a pond or deer from a wood), or noise restrictions that we would be unaware of.
> 
> I think speed limits can be broken in some situations with little added risk, just like a cyclist when they RLJ. But its not legal and not safe.



How is it not safe if there is "little added risk" :-)

Also (to someone else) something can't be "hugely regularly". It's regular or it's not. Perhaps you meant frequent?


----------



## 400bhp (23 Sep 2011)

[QUOTE 1554918"]
There is no such thing as a safe and experienced driver who ignores posted limits. 
[/quote]

far too simplistic - the real world isn't binary.


----------



## 400bhp (23 Sep 2011)

BentMikey said:


> I must admit this is quite possible, IME limits are rarely (to the point of almost never) set too low, but they are often set too high.



Some limits are set lower because of noise reduction and not on safety.


----------



## 400bhp (23 Sep 2011)

mangaman said:


> where a lot of crashes occur, which is ridiculous.
> 
> All credible organisations -* including the IAM*, which Parrot claimed advanced testing on, are specific that one should never break the specified limit.




They might want to look a little more closely at their examiners then


----------



## superbadger (23 Sep 2011)

mchunt said:


> 20mph speed limits ought to be set in urban areas to keep pedestrians safe even if people don't obey them they will probably still only do 30mph - at the moment people see a 30mph limit as permission to do 35, small difference in speed is a huge difference in survivability.
> 
> If urban roads seem safer more people may take up cycling which would lead to even more lives saved though people being healthier and lead to savings in the NHS budget - 20mph limits are therefore an austerity measure!
> 
> However on restricted roads such as motorways and super trunk roads (A14, A1, A42) the limits should be raised more in line with those in Europe - variable limits set according to traffic and weather would be even better. Annoy drivers with 20mph in towns but give them something back on motorways.



 Good point. But when i went along the A17 i think everyone had already decided do this before passed by law!!!!. Wagons were doing 100+ and not a cop in sight?. At least i never got nailed so happy days....


----------



## mangaman (23 Sep 2011)

400bhp said:


> They might want to look a little more closely at their examiners then



Yawn.

So you know more than them.

Well done. Just don't expect anyone to believe a national organisation's website to be disproven by an anonymous keyboard warrior who may be 12 years old for all we know.


----------



## 400bhp (23 Sep 2011)

As opposed to someone who gets his info from a website 

Read what I wrote again and have a think why I wrote it.


----------



## 400bhp (23 Sep 2011)

Paul-I know your MO and CBA to spend the next 3 weeks and 1 squillion posts discussing our differences of opinions on this subject.

Lets agree to disagree on this one.


----------



## mangaman (23 Sep 2011)

400bhp said:


> As opposed to someone who gets his info from a website
> 
> Read what I wrote again and have a think why I wrote it.



I've read it again and, sorry, I find I don't give a shoot.

I expect you will anonymously claim to be an expert driver and be too clever for speed limits etc etc.

I've seen it all before and you're on the wrong forum if you expect dangerous driving to be condoned.

I've said it many a time before you joined - so I'll flounce off and let you speed and believe you are an above average driver as much as you want. As long as you don't drive near me I don't care.


----------



## jds_1981 (23 Sep 2011)

mangaman said:


> I'm afraid you'll have to work a bit harder to convince me that 17 year old newly qualified drivers aren't more likely to be dangerous than newly qualified 37 year olds. It's not just driving experience, it's maturity. You say you saw a story to the contrary - it would be interesting to see.
> 
> As to your second point - I didn't realised fora did "research"! Could you share your findings.
> 
> I'm not being awkward - just interested - as I have done a google search on these questions and not found much of any use.



Part 2 

http://jama.ama-assn.org/search?fulltext=graduated+driving&submit=yes&x=23&y=13. Lots of places quote it. If you hover over one of the links you get a synopsis


> *Conclusions* In the United States, stronger GDL programs with restrictions on nighttime driving as well as allowed passengers, relative to programs with none of the key GDL elements, were associated with substantially lower fatal crash incidence for 16-year-old drivers but somewhat higher fatal crash incidence for 18-year-old drivers. Future studies should seek to determine what accounts for the increase among 18-year-old drivers and whether refinements in GDL programs can reduce this association.



One of the potential reasons they give is that people may put off getting their license, but apparently next report will follow up on this (presumably by getting license application ages/insurance?)


----------



## davefb (24 Sep 2011)

20mph limits shouldnt be needed.. every place they're put in, no one should be driving more than 20 anyway... its the crass stupidity of people that seem to take limits as 'what i should drive at' instead of what it is , a limit..

we have one near us, it uses bumps ( personally I'd prefer cameras , more and more cameras, rather than wrecking the suspension, but hey ho)..

we dont have one on our road, but its a rat run and clowns fly down it.... so far, the incidents are knocks or drive aways, but theres lots of 'near misses', yet we've been told, until someone is killed, they wont do anything..

as for 'raising limits like europe', the 'problem' is that europe has something like double the death rates for driving, is that what we want?

but yeah , definately the case that europe also has lower during bad weather limits and lower past cities in a lot of cases... all very confusing afaik


----------



## Becs (25 Sep 2011)

[QUOTE 1554971"]
80mph limit on the motorway may be closer than most think. There's talk of the conservatives announcing the change during their conference.
[/quote]

About time too, most of us do at least that anyway, apart from on the M6 (toll)racetrack. :-)


----------



## davefb (25 Sep 2011)

[QUOTE 1554971"]
80mph limit on the motorway may be closer than most think. There's talk of the conservatives announcing the change during their conference.
[/quote]

disgusting piece of 'get votes quick' imho... yes , i'd lie if I said I don't go over 70, but I also know that in most occasions on the motorway 70 is not only more than enough, but faster than is sensible.. 

if it does come in, they really need to add lower limits during heavy traffic...

I genuinely don't understand why they're doing this, there is no need..


----------



## Nigeyy (25 Sep 2011)

Speed limits on motorways are all relative and how fast traffic is moving around you; if you're stuck in a traffic jam, doing a constant 30mph will seem to be incredibly fast and liberating.

70mph on UK motorways with clear conditions always seemed to be a bit slow -i don't mind admitting I would usually go 75-80mph.

Moved to the States.....

All of a sudden being able to do 60mph in a 55mph limit (usual speed limit on a major highway over here) seems to be pretty fast.

Problem with any speed limit is that the de facto limit always seems to be 5-15mph faster than the posted one. I think it's a poor argument to say that since most people do 80mph in a 70mph, the limit should be increased -all it means is that if the new limit is 80mph, people will go 90mph.

FWIW, I would have a 20mph limit through any urban zone. Just remember, back in the early 1900s 20mph was a galloping horse


----------



## Becs (25 Sep 2011)

Nigeyy said:


> Speed limits on motorways are all relative and how fast traffic is moving around you; if you're stuck in a traffic jam, doing a constant 30mph will seem to be incredibly fast and liberating.
> 
> 70mph on UK motorways with clear conditions always seemed to be a bit slow -i don't mind admitting I would usually go 75-80mph.
> 
> ...



That's brisk canter at best dear boy!

My year's worth of driving in the US (rural pennsylvannia mainly) was rather eye opening - hardly anyone speeds but most either drink drive or turn a blind eye when those around them do (and these were decent professional people not boy racers!).


----------



## MontyVeda (25 Sep 2011)

Becs said:


> That's brisk canter at best dear boy!
> 
> My year's worth of driving in the US (rural pennsylvannia mainly) was rather eye opening - hardly anyone speeds but *most either drink drive or turn a blind eye when those around them do* (and these were decent professional people not boy racers!).



Sounds like Cumbria... I used to live nextdoor to, and regularly drink in a rural pub which regularly had lock ins, some of the regulars lived between 5 and 15 miles away. Nobody seemed to 'stagger' to their cars but almost all were regularly over the limit, and probably not 'just over' either. 

It wasn't uncommon to hear somebody blame the breathalyser for 'destroying' the country pub.

+1 for lowering the speed limit in residential areas. 
+10 for the poster who leads by example and drives at 20 on the roads they think should have that limit.


----------



## Norm (25 Sep 2011)

MontyVeda said:


> +10 for the poster who leads by example and drives at 20 on the roads they think should have that limit.


 Maybe +10 for pointing it out but, well, isn't it obvious?

Shouldn't it be -1000000 for anyone who drives above a speed which they consider appropriate and safe, regardless of the posted limits?


----------



## MontyVeda (25 Sep 2011)

Norm said:


> Maybe +10 for pointing it out but, well, isn't it obvious?
> 
> ...



Completely obvious Norm, but people do tend to drive _at the limit_ rather than a suitable speed for the surroundings. 

The more that lead by example the better.


----------



## Norm (25 Sep 2011)

I agree with that, Monty, I just feel slightly saddened to think that it needs to be said. 
Don't point a loaded gun at people
Don't stand on the edge of a cliff in a strong wind
Don't jump off a bridge into water that you don't know to be deep
Don't read the helmet forum unless you have your blood pressure tablets handy
Don't stand too close to someone who has just said 'Hold my beer and watch this'
Don't drive / ride / gallop faster than you think is safe

Whilst I realise it is possibly controversial, I think that people who drive at the limit without consideration are more dangerous than those who consider their surroundings. I'd rather someone did 80 on an empty motorway despite the limit than someone did 30 past a school gates at 8:30 because of the limit.


----------



## pshore (26 Sep 2011)

[QUOTE 1554981"]
Anyway, the story about increasing the motorway limit is apparently speculation (it _was _the Daily Mail) and it wouldn't be done without public consultation.
[/quote]

Remember that Spain lowered its speed limit. More here on: Monbiots blog entry (March 2011)



> Despite the government's professed rediscovery of the environmental agenda in the past few days, it's not likely to happen here in a hurry. Just a fortnight ago Philip Hammond, the transport secretary, suggested the opposite: that we should raise the top speed limit from 70 to 80mph, thus rushing us even faster towards the oil crisis. And the government seems to be allergic to enforcing existing speed limits, let alone reducing them.


----------

