Reduced speed limit

[domd1979]

I notice the article starts that the governement "is to cut the limit" but then acknowledges half way down that its actually a proposal to be put out in a consultation document, so it isn't all cut and dried.

I'm a bit undecided as to whether its such a fantastic idea. Local authorities are already going through speed limit reviews and lowering limits - Derbyshire has cut a lot of roads from 60 to 50 and 50 limits to 40 for example. If that process is carried out properly at least it leaves scope for still having some 60 limits where there shouldn't be any problem in retaining them.

Interestingly no mention of doing anything about more rigourous enforcement of 30 mph limits in urban areas which could potentially reduce pedestrian death and serious injury, whilst making it less hazardous for people to cross the road.

I've no problem with average speed cameras as a means of enforcement, they do have a noticeable effect on people's behaviour. But - they can't be everywhere at once and aren't going to stop loons hurtling off the road at bends. Arguably if the government was really interested in better speed enforcement it would back GPS based limiters - which would maintain adherence to the limit where there's no cameras (most of the road network).

As regards carbon emissions, I suspect enforcing and/or reducing the motorway limit would have a bigger CO2 benefit than a 60 to 50 reduction on single carriageway roads.

 

[snorri]

During the summer i was working as a contractor being sent round various schools in the UK and expected to get from coventry to the rhonda valley in wales for 9am, due to roadworks, a 3 hour drive, with a 50mph limit on most of those roads, would add an extra hour, impacting on various businesses that rely on deliveries in areas with no motorway network.

There is no mention of altering commercial vehicle speed limits so goods delivery times would be unaffected. Lowering the speed limit of private vehicles as proposed will bring the speed of commercial and private vehicles closer together and reduce the number of overtaking manoeuvres making the roads safer.

 

[HLaB]

When Ireland went metric they took the opportunity to lower their national speed limit to 80kph (49.7mph). Most of the time it is impossible to do 60mph anyway on a rural road, it didn't stop idiots from fatally trying. I wonder what the accident stats are now they've reduced the limit, has it really made a difference?

 

[TheDoctor]

And can we also lose this notion that cars are safer? Airbags, crumple zones and all the rest only protect the occupants, not the poor sod they crash into.

 

[Mr Pig]

Why not be content that cars are safer, and not argue that we should now increase the speed limit to bring the risk back up again?

Because blanket limits force drivers to drive at lower speeds in all circumstances even when higher speeds might be safe. Weather and traffic conditions on the roads vary all the time yet our driver education system does little to teach people how to correctly asses such conditions.

The focus on blanket speed limits exists for one reason only, they are easy to enforce. Robotic, self-financing camera systems can be relied on to provide thousands of convictions that prove the problem is being tackled when in reality it just isn't. And they will never work because maximum speed never causes accidents.

I'll say that again, maximum speed never causes accidents. Motorway crashes never happen because 70mph is too high a speed to allow drivers to achieve. They happen because drivers drive at a speed that is too high for the particular circumstances they are in at the time. Either that or make an error of judgment or observation that has sod all to do with the speed they are traveling at.

We've all driven down country roads and seen the flowers tied to trees. Were are the flowers? Not always, but almost always? On a bend. In other words on a lower-speed, but more hazardous section of the road. People do not crash on country bends because they are allowed to drive at 60 on the straight sections. They crash on the bends because they do 40 round bends that can only be safely negotiated at 25. They crash because they fail to slow down for blind junctions. They crash because they overtake when it's not safe to do so, their impatience often heightened by being stuck behind a 'safe' driver who is sitting at 40.

I firmly predict that lowering the national limit to 50 will make no difference to the accident rate whatsoever. Many of the more interesting human activities carry risk. Cycling carries risk. The roller coaster of our continual survival on this earth is part of what defines us, makes us feel alive, and the desire to remove all risk from life is driven by people who are already dead.

 

[ufkacbln]

And can we also lose this notion that cars are safer? Airbags, crumple zones and all the rest only protect the occupants, not the poor sod they crash into.

If cars are more efficient, safer and can brake better - why does nearly every junction have to have braking surfaces?

 

[ufkacbln]

Let's not forget that speed limits were brought in as too many drivers were unable to match their speed appropriately to the conditions

Secondly lets not dismiss the speed camera so lightly 1.7 million drivers were caught for driving illegally in 2007 - that is an excellent result.

What we need to do is start acting upon the information they are providing. Speeding is just one symptom of a "risk taking" mentality and is linked to other activities such as tail gating, inappropriate overtaking, poor discipline at junctions etc. There is also evidence that a driver caught speeding is more than twice as likely to be in an "injury" accident in the next tewelve months than the "average" driver without such an endorsement.

We should be looking at the speeding ticket as a warning thatthe driver is a higher risk and giving the warning the attention it deserves.

 

[domd1979]

Generally more modern cars to have pretty good brakes, problem is virtually everyone brakes at the last minute. You only have to watch cars as they approach a junction/roundabout and see how close they are before slowing down.

Would be interesting if people learnt to drive in a car 30 or 40 years old...

If cars are more efficient, safer and can brake better - why does nearly every junction have to have braking surfaces?

 

[domd1979]

They crash because they overtake when it's not safe to do so, their impatience often heightened by being stuck behind a 'safe' driver who is sitting at 40.

Last Saturday, driving my van near Uttoxeter, I was that person doing 40mph. On a double bend, double white lines, some idiot in a Lexus decided to overtake me in what can only be described as a death manoeuvre. If he's got that annoyed with me that he has to risk his own death and that of others (its a road with a high number of accidents), that's a personality defect on his part, not a fault of my driving at a speed safe for the vehicle I'm driving.

The only person responsible for the decision to overtake is the person doing the overtaking.

 

[Mr Pig]

Please don't suggest that slower drivers are to blame for causing the accidents of others.

You miss the point. The point is that poor drivers will take risks and make bad judgments irrespective of the speed limit in force on the road in question. Lowering the speed limit won't stop them. If anything it may even make them more likely to overtake recklessly by slowing down the traffic in front of them!

you do know what the optimum speed for traffic flow is on a congested motorway don't you? It's less than 70.

So what? I regularly drive on busy motorways where 70 is impossible never mind optimal. However I also drive on clear, wide motorways with good visibility in nice weather where doing 80 would be easy and safe.

But you'll say 'It's not safe, it's dangerous because you're going faster'. Bollocks. The statistics are a sham. Most motorway crashes are caused by drivers driving too fast in poor weather, changing lane without paying attention, driving too close to the vehicle in front, being distracted and countless other driving errors that have nothing to do with their speed relative to the speed limit. The figures are manipulated to implicate speed for the one reason I mentioned earlier. Because that's the only thing that's easy to tackle.

They don't have the money to put lots more cops in cars and even if they did it's a lot harder to obtain convictions for offences like tailgating or just not driving very well. How many people do you know who've been fined for such an offence? Know anyone with points for speeding?

Yip, because it's cheap and easy to catch them. Police are happy, gold stars on their performance charts. Politicians are happy, not costing much and it looks like they're doing something. But look closely, are the accident numbers 'really' coming down? Ahh. Nope.

 

[ufkacbln]

You miss the point. The point is that poor drivers will take risks and make bad judgments irrespective of the speed limit in force on the road in question. Lowering the speed limit won't stop them. If anything it may even make them more likely to overtake recklessly by slowing down the traffic in front of them!

The problem is where tp stop - these idiots will drive recklessly at junctions, traffic lights, or anything else that slows them down - as I said before lets start really looking at the risks these drivers represent and deal withthem accordingly

They don't have the money to put lots more cops in cars and even if they did it's a lot harder to obtain convictions for offences like tailgating or just not driving very well. How many people do you know who've been fined for such an offence? Know anyone with points for speeding?

Two options... lets put up the fines for speeding to an acceptable level, say £300 to representthe fact that it is breaking the law... at 2007 figures that would generate some £510m (not allowing for all the other income from illegal parking, trafic light offences, etc) ... the budget for a typical Police force is about half that. We could easily have the equivalent of two County Police forces dedicated to traffic and financed by the offenders!

Yip, because it's cheap and easy to catch them. Police are happy, gold stars on their performance charts. Politicians are happy, not costing much and it looks like they're doing something. But look closely, are the accident numbers 'really' coming down? Ahh. Nope.

As above - finance problems solved.

 

[snorri]

Motorways are not included in the proposed changes, and we don't cycle on motorways. As we are on a cycle forum, I think it would be more constructive to restrict the arguments to the types of roads on which we cycle.

 

[Mr Pig]

Two options... lets put up the fines for speeding to an acceptable level.

I agree. Fine people according to their means. What would a £300 fine mean to a top football player? Fine him ten grand and limit the power of the car he's allowed to drive.

Or bring back the stocks! Heck, anything, but make the punishment relevant. Speeding fines are so ubiquitous now that many insurance companies don't even take any notice of them unless you've got loads.

My wife was just telling me about a girl who was killed on the hard shoulder by a woman driver who was reading a text at the wheel. Veered off course and hit the victim's parked car. Turned out she'd been texting for ages before she crashed. Would any speed camera have spotted that? Was she speeding? No to both.

 

[Mr Pig]

I think it would be more constructive to restrict the arguments to the types of roads on which we cycle.

I wouldn't get too cocky if I were you. How long before some bleeding heart decides to ban cycling on the roads because it's too dangerous? And you can't argue, the statistics will support it...

 

[TheDoctor]

Well, the statistics would support banning cars too!!!!!!!!!!!!!!