Reduced speed limit

[Night Train]

I can't see it having as much impact on accidents as is hoped.

I'd rather see a stricter driving test, phased for both road type and vehicle type and regular, say 3 yearly, re-testing of all drivers. I'd also like to see the driver licenced, taxed and insured and a unique driver registration number displayed on any vehicle driven.

 

[TheDoctor]

+1, NT.

It's over 20 years since I had any driving instruction or training. I've had skiing lessons more recently than that...

 

[snorri]

How long before some bleeding heart decides to ban cycling on the roads because it's too dangerous?

The risk of cyclists being banned will be reduced when the roads are made safer by lowering the speed limit. That is another point in favour surely?

 

[Night Train]

+1, NT.

It's over 20 years since I had any driving instruction or training. I've had skiing lessons more recently than that...

Most people retrain for work based skills and knowledge to keep up to date and learn about changes to regulations. In many trades and professions it is a requirement of the job.
Yet when a job requires a peson to drive the driving skill can be decades out of date and with no refresher.

People should see driving, of any type of vehicle, (whether it is used for work or not) as a skill to keep updated and to be proud of the level of further achievement and recent passing of tests as they would if it was a career requirement. How many drivers have read the latest Highway Code? How many even knew it was updated recently never mind bought and read a copy? How many would be too afraid of failing our most basic of driving tests if they had to re test now?

I believe that it is only when all people are proud to be safe and considerate on the roads and keen to improve their ability to be safe and considerate that accidents will reduce. Until then technology and legislation will only make some safer at the expense of others.

 

[Black Sheep]

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.

a light car based van is allowed to travel at the same limit as a car, delivery times for these vehicles would be increased, however larger vans would be doing the same speed as regular traffic, so perhaps a good thing...

And why do the limits only ever go down? How about seeing higher speed limits on some of the safer stretches of motorway? Cars are safer, more stable and can stop much better than they could forty years ago yet we're being told do drive them ever-more slowly. Will these people only be happy when we all stay home at all times?

keeping the difference in speed between cars and heavy goods vehicles is a good plan IMO trucks are limited to about 50mph and regardless of how good your car is at NCAP ratings, if you go into the back of a truck it will hurt.

the faster vehicles arrive at an accident, and if you've ever been just behind an accident on a motorway you'll know how scary it is, its happened to me twice, once nearly had me in the middle of it - i was lucky, the more cars are likely to be involved in the accident due to the time taken to stop / slow.

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 faster your moving the less time you have for the maneuver

how much harder is it to dodge that pot hole while biking at high speed than at a low speed?

faster your traveling, less time you have to react or even to look at whats going on.



to be honest, the system needs a complete scrap and shake up similar to what was done when the motorways first arrived, the whole signage system was replaced and so it was like a fresh set of motoring rules, not just one or two changes.

perhaps a rural road limit (national limit)
an urban limit (30)
town centre / schools limit (20)

these can be altered to suit, for example a main bypass that has barriers down the side but in an urban area could have signs saying 40mph, putting it above the assumed limit. the less random we make speed limits the more concentration can be placed on whats going on outside of the car.

yes, you'll always get muppets who are going to speed stupidly, but for the most part the general public speed when they can't see the point for the speed limit being there, putting a sign up as you get into a city centre saying "pedestrians in road - 20mph" or "school ahead, 20mph" most people would drop their speed.

"urban area, children about - 30mph" this wouldn't need to be on the sign, but link the reason for the limit to the speed limit and more people would be happier to comply

 

[Night Train]

yes, you'll always get muppets who are going to speed stupidly, but for the most part the general public speed when they can't see the point for the speed limit being there,

I would say that 'muppet' and 'general public' are interchangeable here.

A good driver can see the point of reducing speed and a good driver will use the correct and safest speed even if there were no signed or legal restriction on speed at all. It is the 'muppets' who drive as fast as they can get away with regardless of conditions.
It is on this basis that I believe that lack of good observation is the big problem as good observation will lead to moderation in speed and improved control of a vehicle.
A good road user, whether on foot, on a bike or in a motor vehicle,will be able to observe actual and potential hazards well in advance if it causing an accident and will adjust speed, positioning and intent accordingly.

 

[Quoth]

1. Determine European country with lowest deaths/injuries due to car accidents.
2. Copy/Paste regulations and resources.
3. Result!

 

[oxbob]

1. Determine European country with lowest deaths/injuries due to car accidents.
2. Copy/Paste regulations and resources.
3. Result!

So death by tram doesn't count?

 

[Quoth]

So death by tram doesn't count?

"Death By Tram" sounds like an awesome Blackpool-based goth band.

Surely the only people who die under trams are young maidens tied to the tracks by moustachioed cads in top hats? Ban top hats and monocles I say!

 

[Mr Pig]

I would say that 'muppet' and 'general public' are interchangeable here.

Ha ha ha :0) To be honest though I think that most people are not that dim, it's the minority who are always going to be a problem. I think the majority of people try to drive sensibly, and make a perfectly ok job of it most of the time. Better education would help these people be better drivers. However, people are just people and we all will make the odd mistake. Add the 'muppet' factor and it's simply impossible to stop accidents altogether. If we want to drive around, a certain number of deaths each year is the price we have to pay.

Oh, and another reason why they want to do this particular speed reduction. It's very cheap as they don't have to replace any signs at all! The national speed limit sign is a circle with a line through it, all they need to do is say that this sign now means 50mph.

 

[Rhythm Thief]

Speed cameras are an easy and cheap way of punishing people for one aspect of poor driving. They free up the traffic police to concentrate on other aspects, as they do.

I suspect that this is not how politicians' minds work, Mr P. I think the thought process is more likely to go "well, now we've got speed cameras, we don't need as many traffic police." I haven't got any figures, but I know a bit about human nature.

 

[tyred]

Lowering speed limits achieves absolutely nothing. They have been lowered to 50MPH on most roads when the roadsides were changed to metric (what an unbelieveable waste of money) and there is no change to the amount of accidents. Accidents are not caused by breaking the speed limit, accidents are caused by excess speed for the conditions, poor driving, not paying attention, taking drugs (the only possible explanation for how some drive IMO). When you do a driving test, it lasts about 15-20 minutes, it's done in a quiet urban enviroment and you can pass your test without ever having drove on a wet road. How can the examiner make a decision about whether or not you can drive properly based on what the driving test consists of? Young people should be took on to a skid pan and taught about car control. Modern cars have brakes which are so powerful, people never even attempt to anticipate anything. They just stand on the brakes. But if the road is greasy, they lose control. The first thing I ever drove when I was about 6 was an MF 65, a late 1950s tractor with marginal brakes which tend to just come on with a snap, lock solid and don't release properly. It was a design fault on these tractors. Our farm at home is quite steep in places. I quickly learned the ability to control speed with little use of brakes, especially on damp grass. People learning to drive should be shown not to rely on brakes. They should be forced to learned how to judge the correct speed for the conditions. Speed limits outside of a town are irrelevent and purely money making exercise by the governement an effort to cover up the fact that they are incapable of teaching people to drive properly.

 

[Rhythm Thief]

I've always driven without much recourse to the brakes. But I was talking to an HGV driver assessor at work the other day and he was telling me that, because it's quicker and cheaper to reline brakes than to service a gearbox, drivers now are being taught to use the brakes to slow down and block change down the gears when the vehicle is stopped. I couldn't drive like that.

 

[very-near]

I've always driven without much recourse to the brakes. But I was talking to an HGV driver assessor at work the other day and he was telling me that, because it's quicker and cheaper to reline brakes than to service a gearbox, drivers now are being taught to use the brakes to slow down and block change down the gears when the vehicle is stopped. I couldn't drive like that.

My driving instructor taught me to use the brakes rather than the gears as he argued it being cheaper to change some brake pads than a clutch.

I would rather use a lower gear and employ engine braking and supplement it with the brakes to slow me down as I've had brake fade before on a car on a big hill which is fairly scary.

Of course this is academic on a cycle with freewheeling hubs and 100% reliant on the brakes to do all the stopping.

 

[col]

The idea that the monority cause the accidents is true, and that minority are who all this is about. What other minority is there? the impatiant, the drugged up drivers, the inexperienced, they are the ones who misjudge a bend or an overtake and also the conditions.