20 mph Speed Limit Rejected - A Rare Win

[singlecoil]

Blakewater said:

singlecoil said:

Blakewater said:

I know it's a Daily Mail link but it's about something that has happened that I think has relevance here.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2956927/Ma...

What do you think the relevance might be?

What do you really think?

If he feels so passionately about speeding then, however contrite he tries to be, exceeding the limit because he wasn't concentrating on his driving is pretty poor.

Are you familiar with Bristol? His speeding offence took place on the Portway. Driving at 35 on the Portway is rather different to driving at 25 along one of the inner city streets. Because you hate speed limits and anybody involved with them so much it's clouding your judgement.

[spadriver]

Why should a road make any difference as to breaking a limit.?
No concentration is not a good excuse especially when you have spent 3.2 million of tax payers money to enforce a limit elsewhere. .I think it a shame he wasn't caught at 25 in his own stupid limit.

[singlecoil]

So the fact that he was caught speeding means the whole idea of speed limits come collapsing to the ground?

I don't think so. Basically it's irrelevant.

If people want speed limits abolished they are going to have to do a lot better than that.

[singlecoil]

There seems to be an echo in here.

[Dr Jekyll]

singlecoil said:

Are you familiar with Bristol? His speeding offence took place on the Portway. Driving at 35 on the Portway is rather different to driving at 25 along one of the inner city streets. Because you hate speed limits and anybody involved with them so much it's clouding your judgement.

So why is the limit so low?
If it's wrong for anyone else to go at that speed, it must be wrong for him surely?

Your conviction that anyone who fails to endorse your every opinion is a gung ho speed maniac is clouding your judgement.

[singlecoil]

Dr Jekyll said:

So why is the limit so low?
If it's wrong for anyone else to go at that speed, it must be wrong for him surely?

Your conviction that anyone who fails to endorse your every opinion is a gung ho speed maniac is clouding your judgement.

I have no idea why the limit there is so low, and indeed it was wrong for him to be doing that speed there. It would gave been even more wrong if he had steamed up Park Street at 95mph, but it would still have no relevance to the subject of this thread.

[Blakewater]

I don't believe anyone here has called for all speed limits to be abolished, only for a sensible approach to speed limits and more focus on other aspects of safe driving besides speed. One of the key things in this case is that the guy admitted to not concentrating. So he advocates recommended speeds at which to crash and run over children while driving along in a dreamworld rather than talking about increasing driving skills and attitudes to driving which would, in reality, do more to make the roads safer.

I very much doubt the occasion he got caught was the only time his mind has wandered when driving and the only time he's slipped over the limit. It reminds me of the village where the parish council petitioned the police to set up a speed trap on the main road. When the police did, the first person they caught was the leader of the parish council on his way to the newsagent's shop. The second person they caught was the leader of the parish council on his way back. A lot of people think everyone else is the problem and needs dealing with and don't look to themselves and their own behaviour. Because they think speeding is what only boy racers and maniacs do, they get caught out by speed traps because they frequently slip over the limit without noticing or looking out for the speed traps they think they don't need to worry about. These are the speeding drivers we need to worry about in urban and residential areas.

[singlecoil]

Blakewater said:

I don't believe anyone here has called for all speed limits to be abolished, only for a sensible approach to speed limits and more focus on other aspects of safe driving besides speed.

I removed the extraneous material from your post, hope you don't mind. It's only that first sentence I want to reply to anyway.

I see what you are getting at, but there's a couple of holes in your logic. One is that enforcing speed limits doesn't in any way preclude enforcing other rules of the road. The other is that if speed limits are not enforced, then they might as well not exist. Complaining about the levels at which limits are set is in effect claiming that you are better able to decide on an appropriate speed than those people whose job it is to do so, guided by what they understand the wishes of the people who elected them to be.

As I pointed out earlier, the fact that one of the main proponents of lower limits in Bristol was caught speeding is irrelevant, and simply shows that we all make mistakes from time to time, and suffering the consequences of those mistakes is what teaches us not to repeat them.

[spadriver]

So you have not broken ANY speed limits recently?

[singlecoil]

Last one was about six years ago, and proved to be quite a nuisance. I modified my driving after that.

[spadriver]

Not asking about getting caught

[singlecoil]

Yes, good point, I certainly drift over the limit from time to time, but I try to make sure it's by not more than 2-3mph. You never know when there might be a camera about and there isn't normally enough advantage to be had from speeding to make the risk worth it.

[Dr Jekyll]

singlecoil said:

Complaining about the levels at which limits are set is in effect claiming that you are better able to decide on an appropriate speed than those people whose job it is to do so, guided by what they understand the wishes of the people who elected them to be.

First of all those whose job it is to set limits are councillors, who often totally ignore the advice of traffic engineers. So why shouldn't we know better?

Secondly this argument of 'you must not object to the level at which limits are set because they are set by superior beings whose reasoning is beyond your comprehension' only applies when someone suggests the limit is too low. If someone says the limit is set too high, then their view must be taken into consideration because they are 'the people who elected them'. We have votes as well you know.


Thirdly, in this case the omnipotent superbeing who set the limit clearly feels an appropriate speed is higher than the limit, so who are we to argue?

[anonymous-user]

Dr Jekyll said:

First of all those whose job it is to set limits are councillors, who often totally ignore the advice of traffic engineers. So why shouldn't we know better?

Secondly this argument of 'you must not object to the level at which limits are set because they are set by superior beings whose reasoning is beyond your comprehension' only applies when someone suggests the limit is too low. If someone says the limit is set too high, then their view must be taken into consideration because they are 'the people who elected them'. We have votes as well you know.

Thirdly, in this case the omnipotent superbeing who set the limit clearly feels an appropriate speed is higher than the limit, so who are we to argue?

There is some truth in this, but it's not entirely accurate for the majority of cases.

The speed of a road is determined by environment (including existing traffic speed) and safety record, not by the Councillors. They can request that a specific road is looked at for a reduced limit, but if there is no actual requirement (or history of accidents) to reduce the speed, then it won't be reduced. Even 20mph zone roads should have average speeds of under 24mph before they can be considered for a zone.

Councillors have the remit to propose changes to the highways network as they are, at the end of the day, elected representatives. You have collectively chosen that person as someone with the authority to decide and spend budgets. There is an objection process for changing speed limits. Any change in speed limit will need an associated order, these are published in the ignored section of the local rag, usually near the personal services and dodgy massages. All lodged objections are looked at and assessed for validity by the engineers, not by the Councillors. Any objections which raise a point of policy are then passed on to the Councillor for an answer.

[Dr Jekyll]

But it is still ultimately up to the whim of the councillors.

There was a case where engineers objected to a limit as unnecessary. The council responded by installing a crash barrier next to the road, then announced that fast moving traffic close to a barrier was dangerous and therefore they were now justified in reducing the limit.
Also a case in (I think) Oxfordshire where the council wanted to lower an NSL to 50, police and engineers objected. So the council planted some trees alongside the road and then announced that this made the road more dangerous. The police pointed out that it was a straight stretch of road and going at 60 instead of 50 would neither increase the risk of swerving off the road nor materially affect the result of hitting a tree. But the council imposed the limit anyway.

Note to Singlecoil, these are not 'anecdotes', they are genuine examples of how the system works in real life.

[anonymous-user]

That's mental. That should never have been allowed to happen. No highway manager would happily approve trees close to moving traffic, trees are the bane of a highway engineers life!

[Devil2575]

Dr Jekyl said:

.

Note to Singlecoil, these are not 'anecdotes', they are genuine examples of how the system works in real life.

It might be a genuine example but it is still an anecdote. All we have is your word and it is subject to the vagaries of your memory.
I'm sure stupid decisions are made all the time as they are in any situation where people are involved.

[SK425]

singlecoil said:

Complaining about the levels at which limits are set is in effect claiming that you are better able to decide on an appropriate speed than those people whose job it is to do so, guided by what they understand the wishes of the people who elected them to be.

That's not quite right (assuming you're using "appropriate speed" in the conventional sense?).

We're all required to assess appropriate speed continuously, because we're never allowed to drive too fast, and what is 'too fast' is often not constant but varies along the road. There are two factors that mean the speed limit doesn't bear much relation to appropriate speed: 1) hazards that demand driving slower than the speed limit are everywhere and 2) opportunities to drive safely above the speed limit are everywhere. Of course, the higher the limit, the more likely you are to encounter 1) and the less likely you are to encounter 2). The speed limit just sets the bound within which we are given the responsibility to choose (and continuously reassess) appropriate speed. It is just the threshold above which our driving becomes automatically criminal by virtue of speed, without any need to show inappropriateness and without any defence of appropriateness.

Complaining about the level at which limits are set isn't claiming anything about your ability to determine appropriate speed - you're abiity to do that, however good or bad it is, will not be affected by a change in the speed limit. Complaining about the levels at which limits are set is simply expressing the view that you would like that threshold of automatically criminal to be in a different place. I hope nobody would ask for raised limits without understanding and being willing to accept the responsibility that comes with the freedom.

[Phatboy317]

OpulentBob said:

Even 20mph zone roads should have average speeds of under 24mph before they can be considered for a zone.

That's not what's happening in Bristol - they're simply phasing in a blanket city-wide 20mph limit, without any regard to average speeds or anything else.
The only roads exempt from the 20 limit are those which previously had 40 or 50mph limits.

[singlecoil]

Dr Jekyll said:

First of all those whose job it is to set limits are councillors, who often totally ignore the advice of traffic engineers. So why shouldn't we know better?

Secondly this argument of 'you must not object to the level at which limits are set because they are set by superior beings whose reasoning is beyond your comprehension' only applies when someone suggests the limit is too low. If someone says the limit is set too high, then their view must be taken into consideration because they are 'the people who elected them'. We have votes as well you know.


Thirdly, in this case the omnipotent superbeing who set the limit clearly feels an appropriate speed is higher than the limit, so who are we to argue?

Let me know if you ever want to discuss this subject sensibly.