Speeding Does Not Cause Accidents
Discussion
OTBC said:
More up to date research here:
https://fullfact.org/factchecks/speed_humps_20_mph...
Notice more breathtaking dishonesty from those ABD whack jobs, they made all sorts of bogus claims about twenty mph limits without seeming to understand that they're not the same as zones. The ABD confused the two. I think the ABD consists, like Safespeeding, of an angry man in a shed who is way out of his depth.
You've just reminded me to renew my ABD membership. I lapsed when I was made redundant, I feel they need some more money to deal with crackpots like you.https://fullfact.org/factchecks/speed_humps_20_mph...
Notice more breathtaking dishonesty from those ABD whack jobs, they made all sorts of bogus claims about twenty mph limits without seeming to understand that they're not the same as zones. The ABD confused the two. I think the ABD consists, like Safespeeding, of an angry man in a shed who is way out of his depth.
Here's Keith at his best: http://driveeastmidlands.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/br...
This article is a thing of great and terrible beauty, in many ways.
This article is a thing of great and terrible beauty, in many ways.
stag14 said:
im missing the point here chaps, speed limits are the law so if drivers don't want to abide by them don't drive a car - use public transport.
Speed cameras are positioned to enforce the speed limit, albeit they may be revenue spinners but if d
heads did not break the speed limit they would not be required....
the facts as i see them, decide which category you fall into....
)
Simply saying the law is the law and we must all abide by it is a dangerous road to go down. Lower speed limits are pretty insignificant on the whole but groups of people being whipped up to support laws without researching them and questioning whether or not they're benefiting society has proved dangerous in the past and arguably still is now in some respects here and in other countries.Speed cameras are positioned to enforce the speed limit, albeit they may be revenue spinners but if d
heads did not break the speed limit they would not be required....the facts as i see them, decide which category you fall into....
)The IAM have carried out research on the effectiveness of 20mph limits and have found accident rates are increasing in them and they're not a bunch of loons or a lonely man in a shed with a speed over safety agenda.
http://www.roadsafetygb.org.uk/news/3716.html
Rod King has a point that more 20mph limits may mean more casualties in 20mph limits but that still means cutting the speed limits isn't succeeding in cutting the casualties within them.
Here's an example of where a huge majority of people used the democratic process to object to 20mph limits on cost and effectiveness grounds only for the council to press ahead with them anyway.
http://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/10543389.7_out_of_...
An IAM survey has found the majority of people are against 20mph limits.
http://www.iam.org.uk/media-and-research/research/...
As it's probably IAM members answering it's people who care about safe driving giving their opinions.
Travel on any road where speed limits have recently been cut since local authorities took control of them and you see that few people, free of the restraints of those who do abide by them, exceed them. It only takes one driver sticking to the limit to mean everybody behind is sticking to it until they take a risk to overtake. One of the reasons cited in Denmark for the increase in the national speed limit on single carriageway roads reducing accident rates is a reduction in overtaking.
http://cars.aol.co.uk/2014/02/24/danish-road-exper...
Rising numbers of speeding prosecutions also show many people choose to exceed speed limits. Even "steady" drivers like my mother complain the situation with low limits and more speed traps is getting silly.
Dammit said:
Sorry, I had to come back to this - it's like a wobbly tooth.
You are still trying to argue your own point, rather than answer the one that I raised.
I even offered to pay you if you'd actually stay on topic, which is a first.
That you didn't, I suspect, is because a) you know you are wrong and b) you have the debating abilities of a foot stool.
You are still trying to argue your own point, rather than answer the one that I raised.
I even offered to pay you if you'd actually stay on topic, which is a first.
That you didn't, I suspect, is because a) you know you are wrong and b) you have the debating abilities of a foot stool.
I think you've forgotten what the topic is.But what I choose to say has got sod all to do with you, sunshine. (Jeez, there's one or two of you out there up yourselves, aren't there?)
D'you know where France is btw, 'cos from what you've said so far I don't think you could even guess what language they speak.
Anyway, carry on exaggerating 'Cos you have to.
Blakewater said:
Simply saying the law is the law and we must all abide by it is a dangerous road to go down. Lower speed limits are pretty insignificant on the whole but groups of people being whipped up to support laws without researching them and questioning whether or not they're benefiting society has proved dangerous in the past and arguably still is now in some respects here and in other countries.
The IAM have carried out research on the effectiveness of 20mph limits and have found accident rates are increasing in them and they're not a bunch of loons or a lonely man in a shed with a speed over safety agenda.
http://www.roadsafetygb.org.uk/news/3716.html
Rod King has a point that more 20mph limits may mean more casualties in 20mph limits but that still means cutting the speed limits isn't succeeding in cutting the casualties within them.
Here's an example of where a huge majority of people used the democratic process to object to 20mph limits on cost and effectiveness grounds only for the council to press ahead with them anyway.
http://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/10543389.7_out_of_...
An IAM survey has found the majority of people are against 20mph limits.
http://www.iam.org.uk/media-and-research/research/...
As it's probably IAM members answering it's people who care about safe driving giving their opinions.
Travel on any road where speed limits have recently been cut since local authorities took control of them and you see that few people, free of the restraints of those who do abide by them, exceed them. It only takes one driver sticking to the limit to mean everybody behind is sticking to it until they take a risk to overtake. One of the reasons cited in Denmark for the increase in the national speed limit on single carriageway roads reducing accident rates is a reduction in overtaking.
http://cars.aol.co.uk/2014/02/24/danish-road-exper...
Rising numbers of speeding prosecutions also show many people choose to exceed speed limits. Even "steady" drivers like my mother complain the situation with low limits and more speed traps is getting silly.
I think it would make more sense to consider 20mph limits (in towns) separately from NSL 60 to [whatever, 50?] as the environment and type of travel are very different.The IAM have carried out research on the effectiveness of 20mph limits and have found accident rates are increasing in them and they're not a bunch of loons or a lonely man in a shed with a speed over safety agenda.
http://www.roadsafetygb.org.uk/news/3716.html
Rod King has a point that more 20mph limits may mean more casualties in 20mph limits but that still means cutting the speed limits isn't succeeding in cutting the casualties within them.
Here's an example of where a huge majority of people used the democratic process to object to 20mph limits on cost and effectiveness grounds only for the council to press ahead with them anyway.
http://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/10543389.7_out_of_...
An IAM survey has found the majority of people are against 20mph limits.
http://www.iam.org.uk/media-and-research/research/...
As it's probably IAM members answering it's people who care about safe driving giving their opinions.
Travel on any road where speed limits have recently been cut since local authorities took control of them and you see that few people, free of the restraints of those who do abide by them, exceed them. It only takes one driver sticking to the limit to mean everybody behind is sticking to it until they take a risk to overtake. One of the reasons cited in Denmark for the increase in the national speed limit on single carriageway roads reducing accident rates is a reduction in overtaking.
http://cars.aol.co.uk/2014/02/24/danish-road-exper...
Rising numbers of speeding prosecutions also show many people choose to exceed speed limits. Even "steady" drivers like my mother complain the situation with low limits and more speed traps is getting silly.
A wide, flowing NSL road with a side road every couple of miles is very different from a congested urban street with vehicles parked on either side.
I find that 20mph limits make me feel like I'm crawling along when I'm in the car, but the reduction in harm (IF people stick to them) is a real thing, and will hopefully (again, IF people start to stick to them) be part of encouraging more people to get out of their cars for short journeys and (possibly) cycle.
As an example, the vast bulk of all roads in Southwark are 20mph, yet only some of them are signed, and the limit is ignored by absolutely everyone (mainly as there is no signage I suspect). So the only effect is negative- the same accident rate occurs as it always did, but is now reported as being in the new "safer" 20mph zone.
At the same time, on narrow roads where it's unsafe to pass cyclists (I'm using me as an example) AND said cyclist is doing ~22-25mph to clear the unsafe section, you still get high-Partridge-spectrum types (possibly brandishing their ABD cards out of the window, screaming, red in the face as another pile erupts) tailgating aggressively, hand on the horn.
This is not going to encourage people to leave the car at home.
In conclusion - it's too early to tell with 20mph limits, they've not been given a chance as they've been totally ignored so far.
The Danish research is interesting, my question would be: what would the limit need to be for people not to break it?
We have the situation on the motorways where the limit is 70 but everyone (myself included) does 85-90 when conditions permit. If the limit on the motorway was raised to 90mph when it was clear and dry, would everyone stick to 90, or would speeds rise to (say) just over 100?
Dammit said:
The Danish research is interesting, my question would be: what would the limit need to be for people not to break it?
We have the situation on the motorways where the limit is 70 but everyone (myself included) does 85-90 when conditions permit. If the limit on the motorway was raised to 90mph when it was clear and dry, would everyone stick to 90, or would speeds rise to (say) just over 100?
That question has kinda been answered in the Danish article:We have the situation on the motorways where the limit is 70 but everyone (myself included) does 85-90 when conditions permit. If the limit on the motorway was raised to 90mph when it was clear and dry, would everyone stick to 90, or would speeds rise to (say) just over 100?
"According to authorities, it has also resulted in less overtaking as the slowest drivers have increased their speeds, but the fastest 15 per cent drive one km/h slower on average, despite the higher limit."
I'd say it's been answered for Danish drivers - a friend of mine was jailed for two weeks when he exceeded 100mph over there, so the attitude toward speeding might be different.
But I'll admit I simply don't know, really.
I tend to stick to ~60mph on NSL when the limit is 60 - what do others do?
But I'll admit I simply don't know, really.
I tend to stick to ~60mph on NSL when the limit is 60 - what do others do?
Dammit said:
I'd say it's been answered for Danish drivers - a friend of mine was jailed for two weeks when he exceeded 100mph over there, so the attitude toward speeding might be different.
But I'll admit I simply don't know, really.
I tend to stick to ~60mph on NSL when the limit is 60 - what do others do?
It might - but i'd hazard we would see a similar result here. Drivers IMO at least - tend to want to drive at a speed that feels right for the type of road/conditions - where a speed limit is set correctly, it would serve to reinforce that feeling. But I'll admit I simply don't know, really.
I tend to stick to ~60mph on NSL when the limit is 60 - what do others do?
I doubt many purposefully drive 10mph over whatever the posted limit is.
I also tend to stick to 60 - and for the vast majority of roads that have an NSL 60mph limit - i'd say that going faster than that wouldn't feel right even if the limit was higher.
Same goes for NSL DCs - 70 just feels about right. For motorways - i'd say the limit should be raised to 80. A large proportion of traffic on the motorways appears to travel somewhere between 70 and 80 (judging by how many cars overtake me if I sit at the 70 limit). Travelling at around 75-80 the number of vehicles overtaking drops significantly.
Of course you will always get a minority of drivers who take the piss when it comes to speed limits - but there are adequate measures to address these drivers without hitting all drivers over the head.
I think we're veering into the landscape of anecdote here, really - I think we both "feel" roughly the same thing, but you and I are not the rest of the UK.
I do think that most people see a 60 "limit" as actually being (at minimum) 60mph + 10%, often a bit more.
That's personal observation, of course - I've not run around with a clipboard asking a representative slice of the population.
However, putting that to one side I think that most people DO see the "limit" as the "target" for a road - and that's more of a problem.
i.e. in an NSL you shall do AT LEAST 60mph, and the "real" limit is in fact 70.
I do think that most people see a 60 "limit" as actually being (at minimum) 60mph + 10%, often a bit more.
That's personal observation, of course - I've not run around with a clipboard asking a representative slice of the population.
However, putting that to one side I think that most people DO see the "limit" as the "target" for a road - and that's more of a problem.
i.e. in an NSL you shall do AT LEAST 60mph, and the "real" limit is in fact 70.
The idea behind raising the motorway speed limit to 80mph was that, as many people do that speed anyway without Armageddon being the result, they may as well be brought within the law in order to make the law worthwhile. Better to have a law where the threshold is somewhere around the maximum people are willing to do and can do safely. Have a speed limit and say people are fine to exceed it a little bit makes all speed limits, including those in urban areas, seem equally flexible.
I've actually read that when the 70mph limit was introduced in the UK average speeds on motorways rose as people who dithered along at 40mph, as they always had on ordinary roads, suddenly realised they were expected to go much faster on the motorway. It was only a series of accidents in thick fog that led to the introduction of the NSL.
Attitudes to speed limits have changed many times in the UK from 2mph in town and 5mph outside to blanket 20mph speed limits in the 1920s to the limit being completely abolished in the 1930s. It just depends on the public perception of car usage, safety and practicality at the time.
I've actually read that when the 70mph limit was introduced in the UK average speeds on motorways rose as people who dithered along at 40mph, as they always had on ordinary roads, suddenly realised they were expected to go much faster on the motorway. It was only a series of accidents in thick fog that led to the introduction of the NSL.
Attitudes to speed limits have changed many times in the UK from 2mph in town and 5mph outside to blanket 20mph speed limits in the 1920s to the limit being completely abolished in the 1930s. It just depends on the public perception of car usage, safety and practicality at the time.
I think it is useful to add that the number and type of cars on the roads also changed hugely during that time, the marked reduction in road deaths in the 1970's was arguably due to the sudden surge in car numbers on the roads - congestion reduced speeds, with an associated reduction in deaths.
France (hello HBGT!) has roughly twice the road network that we have, with the same approximate population*.
Therefore their higher death rates could be related to higher average traffic speeds, due to lower congestion.
So we might, if successful at getting more people to walk to the shops, see a rise in the KSI figures, which seems counter intuitive at first.
>*This is why it's a good comparison, for the hard of thinking** out there.
>**HBGT
France (hello HBGT!) has roughly twice the road network that we have, with the same approximate population*.
Therefore their higher death rates could be related to higher average traffic speeds, due to lower congestion.
So we might, if successful at getting more people to walk to the shops, see a rise in the KSI figures, which seems counter intuitive at first.
>*This is why it's a good comparison, for the hard of thinking** out there.
>**HBGT
The people already pushing their luck by doing 80mph would, if the legal limit were increased to that speed, start doing 90. The reason they don't already do that is because they realise doing 90 in a 70 is more likely to result in prosecution than 80.
In short it's not the speed that would stop people going faster, it's the threat of prosecution - with all that entails - that restricts their behaviour.
I count myself in that by the way, if there were no limit I'd do 100+ regularly. I'd probably even convince myself, like many do, that if the limit were 80 then the Police "probably wouldn't bother with me if I only did 90".
So, changing the limit wouldn't really effectively "bring people inside the Law" imo, it would just move the goalposts.
In short it's not the speed that would stop people going faster, it's the threat of prosecution - with all that entails - that restricts their behaviour.
I count myself in that by the way, if there were no limit I'd do 100+ regularly. I'd probably even convince myself, like many do, that if the limit were 80 then the Police "probably wouldn't bother with me if I only did 90".
So, changing the limit wouldn't really effectively "bring people inside the Law" imo, it would just move the goalposts.
If they raised the speed limit to 120mph, what speed would you do?
Or 130? Or 150?
Do you think you'd do 160 if the limit was 150?
What speed do you think people do on the unrestricted sections of German autobahn?
What speed do you do on narrow country lanes, where you can legally do 60mph?
People will, by and large, do whatever speed feels right for the road, and, if the limit is set lower than that speed then of course they will speed up a bit if and when the limit is raised.
They also tend to drive at whatever speed they're accustomed to.
Near where I live is a longish straight section of road with a 30 limit, followed by a twisty uphill section which, for as long as I remember, had a 40 limit.
Several years ago, they reduced the limit on the twisty uphill section to 30, but you'll find that the locals still drive the way they always have - 30 along the straight and then speed up to 40 for the twisty uphill bit, even though it's had a 30 limit for years.
Or 130? Or 150?
Do you think you'd do 160 if the limit was 150?
What speed do you think people do on the unrestricted sections of German autobahn?
What speed do you do on narrow country lanes, where you can legally do 60mph?
People will, by and large, do whatever speed feels right for the road, and, if the limit is set lower than that speed then of course they will speed up a bit if and when the limit is raised.
They also tend to drive at whatever speed they're accustomed to.
Near where I live is a longish straight section of road with a 30 limit, followed by a twisty uphill section which, for as long as I remember, had a 40 limit.
Several years ago, they reduced the limit on the twisty uphill section to 30, but you'll find that the locals still drive the way they always have - 30 along the straight and then speed up to 40 for the twisty uphill bit, even though it's had a 30 limit for years.
Phatboy317 said:
If they raised the speed limit to 120mph, what speed would you do?
Or 130? Or 150?
Do you think you'd do 160 if the limit was 150?
What speed do you think people do on the unrestricted sections of German autobahn?
What speed do you do on narrow country lanes, where you can legally do 60mph?
People will, by and large, do whatever speed feels right for the road, and, if the limit is set lower than that speed then of course they will speed up a bit if and when the limit is raised.
They also tend to drive at whatever speed they're accustomed to.
Near where I live is a longish straight section of road with a 30 limit, followed by a twisty uphill section which, for as long as I remember, had a 40 limit.
Several years ago, they reduced the limit on the twisty uphill section to 30, but you'll find that the locals still drive the way they always have - 30 along the straight and then speed up to 40 for the twisty uphill bit, even though it's had a 30 limit for years.
Wrong.Or 130? Or 150?
Do you think you'd do 160 if the limit was 150?
What speed do you think people do on the unrestricted sections of German autobahn?
What speed do you do on narrow country lanes, where you can legally do 60mph?
People will, by and large, do whatever speed feels right for the road, and, if the limit is set lower than that speed then of course they will speed up a bit if and when the limit is raised.
They also tend to drive at whatever speed they're accustomed to.
Near where I live is a longish straight section of road with a 30 limit, followed by a twisty uphill section which, for as long as I remember, had a 40 limit.
Several years ago, they reduced the limit on the twisty uphill section to 30, but you'll find that the locals still drive the way they always have - 30 along the straight and then speed up to 40 for the twisty uphill bit, even though it's had a 30 limit for years.
Most people, especially on motorways, will, by and large, drive at whatever speed they think they can get away with.
singlecoil said:
Wrong.
Most people, especially on motorways, will, by and large, drive at whatever speed they think they can get away with.
So if we had roads with no speed limits - the majority of drivers hoon around at the maximum speed of their cars?Most people, especially on motorways, will, by and large, drive at whatever speed they think they can get away with.
Oddly we do have an example of such a scenario within the British isles - and your opinion doesn't appear to fit with the available evidence:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transport_in_the_Isle...
The 85th percentile data on such roads indicates that drivers naturally limit their speed based on the road/conditions. The mean and median speed on those roads that were measured was around 48 mph - and not a single example recorded an 85th percentile speed above our own NSL of 60mph (the highest 85th percentile was 57mph).
Edited by Moonhawk on Sunday 2nd November 15:56
Phatboy317 said:
singlecoil said:
Most people, especially on motorways, will, by and large, drive at whatever speed they think they can get away with.
You're entitled to your opinionAnyone who shares the opinion that I am entitled to (thanks for that, BTW) will be thinking that yes, such speeds are the ones they reckon they can get away with. Even if they do get caught it will only be a fine and points.
Petrol is cheaper than time, and driving faster to save time is what people will do if they can get away with it.
Moonhawk said:
singlecoil said:
Wrong.
Most people, especially on motorways, will, by and large, drive at whatever speed they think they can get away with.
So if we had roads with no speed limits - the majority of drivers hoon around at the maximum speed of their cars?Most people, especially on motorways, will, by and large, drive at whatever speed they think they can get away with.
Oddly we do have an example of such a scenario within the British isles - and your opinion doesn't appear to fit with the available evidence:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transport_in_the_Isle...
The 85th percentile data on such roads indicates that drivers naturally limit their speed based on the road/conditions. The mean and median speed on those roads that were measured was around 48 mph - and not a single example recorded an 85th percentile speed above our own NSL of 60mph (the highest 85th percentile was 57mph).
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff