Police oppose new speed limits
'Less compliance means more work for us'
Rural speed limits reviewed
Two-thirds of those police forces that responded to the government's consultation on the issue opposed the measure, according to the Association of British Drivers (ABD).
Under the new rules, issued in a government circular earlier this month (Department for Transport Circular 1/2006, Setting Local Speed Limits), speed limits will in future be set on the basis of average vehicle speeds. This tears up the scientific basis on which speed limits have been set for nearly 40 years. Yet research from around the world shows that the most respected and effective speed limits are those set at a speed that only 15 per cent of drivers would exceed if there were no limit -- the "85th percentile" speed. It has also been found that drivers travelling at around this speed have the lowest accident involvement -- see link to the ABD's site below.
Changing to average speeds will result in lower speed limits being set, meaning that half of all drivers, including the safest, will be acting outside the law if they drive normally.
It now emerges that the government has decided to go ahead with this change, despite opposition from the police. The results of a consultation into the proposed changes have been circulated to all those organisations that made their views known (Department for Transport decision letter following consultation on new guidance on setting local speed limits, August 2006). Of the 18 police forces and police organisations that responded to the consultation, 11 opposed the change to mean speeds as the basis of speed limit setting, with only five in favour.
The reason for the police objections is that the new rules will lead to lower speed limits being set, which will mean there will be less self-compliance and a need for greater enforcement.
ABD Policy Director, Mark McArthur-Christie, said: "The organisations with arguably the best knowledge of how speed limits work in practice -- the police -- have voted decisively against a change to mean speeds for speed limit setting. It is another example of the arrogance of this government that it thinks it knows best and has decided to go ahead anyway."
The government justifies the change to mean speeds because of the claimed "well proven relationship" between average speeds and accident frequency. In fact, this claimed relationship is based on a couple of desk-top studies carried out in the 1990s, in which accident rates were compared on roads of similar type but with different average speeds. However, when similar roads have different average speeds, this is because they have different traffic flows, and accident rates are affected by changes in traffic flow. For this reason, the Transport Research Laboratory has recommended that "...roads with very different flow rates should NOT be studied together" (original emphasis -- taken from the published Project Report PPR026: Accident Analysis on Rural Roads - A Technical Guide. Transport Research Laboratory, 2004. Quote taken from para 4.15).
The government's lack of understanding of how speed limits affect road safety is summed up in its new guidance, where one of the aims of the new system is to have "...all vehicles moving at speeds as close to the posted speed limit as possible."
Mark McArthur-Christie said: "This shows the government's nanny-state tendencies, by assuming that drivers are incapable of thinking for themselves and must be constantly regulated. But even well set speed limits are only a rough guide to what may be a safe speed under a particular set of conditions, and drivers need to vary their speed as those conditions change -- and reduce their speed to well below the limit when necessary.
"Most drivers are capable of doing this successfully, but those skills are eroded if drivers are encouraged to offload their responsibility and slavishly drive at the posted speed limit regardless. Switched-off, zombie drivers are dangerous drivers."
And it's interesting too that the Government chose August -- the quiestest news month of the year, when so many people, ordinary folk and decision-makers like are on holiday -- to make this announcement.
Links
They can't put camera's everywhere due to the backlash/exposure to vandalism and so forth.
It's just never going to happen.
Dave
And loose even more public support, probably with a backlash against the police because it's they who seem to be seen as the face of the SCP's...
But I agree, Guy Fawkes had the right idea. Out government couldn't run a p*ss up in a brewery.
Dave
They can't put camera's everywhere due to the backlash/exposure to vandalism and so forth.
It's just never going to happen.
Dave
24/7 satellite monitoring? It may not be inevitable, but you can be sure that a lot of people in a position to influence the result are committed to making it happen.
This is not to mention to powerful commercial interests that are rubbing their hands together with glee.
Although I don't agree with using average speed I have to question the maths in the above section.eg if four drivers are observed on an NSL,one doing 90 and the other 3 doing 60 then the average would be aroung 67 mph meaning a rise in the speed limit and only 1 person breaking it if driving "normally".Or am I barking up the wrong tree?
True, but when was the last time you saw anyone doing 90 on NSL "A" Road...
(and if you did, it wasn't me... honest
) In my experience most people are happy to plod along at a max speed of 50 so there's a good chance most roads will be reduced to at least that
What are the chances that the LAs will use the same places for measuring the typical speed that they use for locating mobile camera vans?
For the latter, they invariably choose a spot where it is safe to travel quickly and thus the typical speed is high in relation to the arbitrary limit for that whole stretch of road. If they didn't do that, they'd rarely catch a speeder.
Why does one strongly suspect, however, that the same snakes will deliberately select slower, less safe sections of the same roads to measure average speeds, thence to apply that lower localised speed to the entire road (and generate even more revenue at their van site a few miles away?
And of course, it only takes one plonker doing 50 at the front of a long queue resulting in the stats showing an average of 50 for that road, whereas most of the people stuck behind will want to travel at the NSL, hence the real average for drivers using that road in clear conditions would be 60. However, the LA will rub their hands in glee and use the stats to justify a lower 50 limit.
This government is beyond belief, they should be put down like the rabid dogs they are.
Says this is all part of the softening up process by the Labour Government .
Transport Minister Douglas Alexander will bring forward a Bill in the Autumn for electronic tolling systems on all trunk roads and city centres which will be 'tag and beacon' windscreen mounted credit card system.
Government has told local authorities to revise down urban speed limits at will to 20 mph
This is part of a grand scheme for a national digital speed map which will become the governments intelligent speed adaptation project .
This system is designed to be mandatory in the engine management system of all new cars and will prevent any vehicle exceeding any local speed limit working by global positioning system and digital speed limit maps.
This speed limiting system is designed to be rolled out across the whole of Europe.
It is the magazines main story.
Doubtless given time you will all also have to employ a man to walk in front of your car waiving a red flag as was the law up to 1896 !
The motorists in Britain are so weak, they will no doubt just lie down an take it as they have with petrol tax, road tax, humps, tolls, and dangerous obstacles planted in the carriageway, parking charges, speeding taxes, vast numbers of needless traffic light which cause such terrible jams and indeed roads they have paid for hundreds of times over being closed to them altogether.
Air travel in contrast carries no fuel tax at all, no VAT and pay nothing for airport road infrastructure etc.
I can't help wondering if road users will ever stand up for themslves
I've given in to the Govt and now just ignore all limts except built up areas and 30 somethings.
I didbn't used to but stuff them, number plates also fall of cars now a days...
Agreed. As I was reading this article I realised that I've got to stop reading these things as I could feel my heart rate increasing.
There will be a backlash eventually. So much of this will finally create enough angry people who will do something about it.
As little as 3 people could block the M25 or any other major road as a protest... wouldn't take much.
Also, (back to topic proper!) - these speed detectors that lie in the road (rubber strips)...it's odd how I often "lapse" in concentration and break the speed limit when passing these, but this gives me a reason to try even harder!
* 60 limits being reduced (increasing frustration, congestion and emissions)
* 30 limits being increased ('cos less than 50% of drivers adhere to them, regardless of environment)
* increased tension between law abiding and progressive motorists
* enforcement by way of emergant technologies.
And how the heck can you conduct a study to determine the 85%ile, or mean or median speed or whatever, when motorists' determination of appropriate speed is influenced by the posted limit?
WilliBetz
And how the heck can you conduct a study to determine the 85%ile, or mean or median speed or whatever, when motorists' determination of appropriate speed is influenced by the posted limit?
WilliBetz
k it, I'm done with speed limits if this is the way that motorists are being treated. I shall drive safely and courteously and largely ignore posted limits. (If I'm not back on Monday then speed *does* kill and the campaigners are right...)
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff