speed limits: do they work? (of course not)
Discussion
anonymous said:
[redacted]
The reduction in death rates is almost certainly down to crashes in modern vehicles being more survivable than ever before along with better medical practices. By 2000 the NCAP safety ratings on cars was really starting to gain momentum, now 15 years later there arn't many pre 2000 car around without the various safety feaures that make crashing more survivable. But it's lower speed limits/speed cameras that get the credit. Skyline33 said:
Sorry but I don't understand what you are saying? I'm not trying to say drivers do or don't stick to the limit.
The point I am making is that speed enforcement and speed limits are used inappropriately to try to solve all and any road safety problems.
No they are not. It is used to lower speeds in the traffic system to give people more time to avoid collisions and to mitigate damage when collisions occur. That's it.The point I am making is that speed enforcement and speed limits are used inappropriately to try to solve all and any road safety problems.
Skyline33 said:
The rational used is that slower speeds means less damage is caused by an accident. This is accident mitigation or hitting people at slower speeds.
In part yes.Skyline33 said:
I believe we can save more lives and make the road safer by focusing on accident prevention or not hitting people at all. In all other walks of life we make people better at their job by training them. Why don't we apply this rational to driving?
What is your evidence that it isn't apllied. What do you know of road safery efforts by your local and district councils and police and fire and rescue services? Very little I expect.Skyline33 said:
The first though is to recognise the vested interests within what has become the speeding industry. Should it be the case that councils who set the limits and the police that enforce it benefit financially from the proceeds of awareness courses?
Now you are a conspiracy theorist. Police and councils benefit only by the offender paying for the enforcement costs. Quite frankly I think that is exactly who should pay, not you and not me. What a great shame offenders committing other types of offences cannot pay the costs of detection and disposal of their offences. That would relieve council tax and income tax payers of a massive burden. There should be a new set of laws to enable this.Skyline33 said:
Shouldn't we question speed limits set for social reasons (to 'encourage modal shift) and ask whether they actually are detrimental to road safety?
Well ask away. There is more detriment to road safety by defiance of them than the limits being there.Skyline33 said:
There will always be a role for enforcement on our roads to deal with the minority of d
heads but what ever speed you set a limit at, drivers will be required to drive to the conditions which severely compromises its effectiveness.
That makes no sense. What relationship to conditions does the speed limit have and how does a speed limit force drivers to drive to any conditions? You are not joining your thoughts up.heads but what ever speed you set a limit at, drivers will be required to drive to the conditions which severely compromises its effectiveness. Skyline33 said:
Far better to educate people to improve hazard perception, concentration and anticipation.
One of the major disposal methods for a speeding offence is a course to do just that. Not only that but the course proceeds are funding the enforcement. vonhosen said:
Skyline33 said:
The point I am making is that speed enforcement and speed limits are used inappropriately to try to solve all and any road safety problems.
They are not used to try & solve all and any road safety problems. To claim they are is foolish.They aren't used to try & deal with drink driving, mobile phone use, defective tyres etc etc.
Other enforcement does take place on many aspects of road safety.
The speed enforcement systems are used to detect and to evidence othe road traffic offences. Mobile phone, seat belts, dodgy number plates, unbelted children, excess passengers etc. are all offences that can be and are dealt with.
tapereel said:
vonhosen said:
Skyline33 said:
The point I am making is that speed enforcement and speed limits are used inappropriately to try to solve all and any road safety problems.
They are not used to try & solve all and any road safety problems. To claim they are is foolish.They aren't used to try & deal with drink driving, mobile phone use, defective tyres etc etc.
Other enforcement does take place on many aspects of road safety.
The speed enforcement systems are used to detect and to evidence othe road traffic offences. Mobile phone, seat belts, dodgy number plates, unbelted children, excess passengers etc. are all offences that can be and are dealt with.
The main thrust of my point is that it's not all about speed enforcement & there are other forms of enforcement to deal with other offences.
vonhosen said:
tapereel said:
vonhosen said:
Skyline33 said:
The point I am making is that speed enforcement and speed limits are used inappropriately to try to solve all and any road safety problems.
They are not used to try & solve all and any road safety problems. To claim they are is foolish.They aren't used to try & deal with drink driving, mobile phone use, defective tyres etc etc.
Other enforcement does take place on many aspects of road safety.
The speed enforcement systems are used to detect and to evidence othe road traffic offences. Mobile phone, seat belts, dodgy number plates, unbelted children, excess passengers etc. are all offences that can be and are dealt with.
The main thrust of my point is that it's not all about speed enforcement & there are other forms of enforcement to deal with other offences.
Willy Nilly said:
anonymous said:
[redacted]
The reduction in death rates is almost certainly down to crashes in modern vehicles being more survivable than ever before along with better medical practices. By 2000 the NCAP safety ratings on cars was really starting to gain momentum, now 15 years later there arn't many pre 2000 car around without the various safety feaures that make crashing more survivable. But it's lower speed limits/speed cameras that get the credit. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa...
Edited by Pete317 on Saturday 15th August 22:56
I
if that were the case then it is a unrealistic and heavy handed approach which cannot take into account weather conditions, unexpected or unusual events or indeed the general variability of roads conditions. Fortunately it isn't the case and it is individuals driving to the conditions that is more important.
Despite the patronising tone. The dominant road safety rational is lowering speed limits and enforcement. It's cheap and creates revenue as well as appeasing resident nimbly ism.
Where is the conspiracy here. It's a documents fact that councils and police receive a cut from awareness courses. They are incentivised to maximise that revenue by enforcing and lowering speed limits. This means that other solutions will be dismissed as they don't produce a revenue stream.
Speed limits set at artificially low levels encourage disrespect of all limits. They increase the likelihood of frustration and risky overtakes. They also end speed limits role of highlighting accident black spots.
In short totally wrong
What could be clearer? An urban speed limit set at say 30 may be fine on a sunny summer afternoon but dangerous on a freezing January morning. Drivers are expected to set their speed according to the conditions. The 30mph speed limit on the freezing January morning bares no resemblance what so ever to the safe speed for the conditions at that time. Therefore the most important skill a driver can learn is how to drive to the conditions.
tapereel said:
Skyline33 said:
Sorry but I don't understand what you are saying? I'm not trying to say drivers do or don't stick to the limit.
The point I am making is that speed enforcement and speed limits are used inappropriately to try to solve all and any road safety problems.
No they are not. It is used to lower speeds in the traffic system to give people more time to avoid collisions and to mitigate damage when collisions occur. That's it. The point I am making is that speed enforcement and speed limits are used inappropriately to try to solve all and any road safety problems.
if that were the case then it is a unrealistic and heavy handed approach which cannot take into account weather conditions, unexpected or unusual events or indeed the general variability of roads conditions. Fortunately it isn't the case and it is individuals driving to the conditions that is more important.
Skyline33 said:
The rational used is that slower speeds means less damage is caused by an accident. This is accident mitigation or hitting people at slower speeds.
In part yes.Skyline33 said:
I believe we can save more lives and make the road safer by focusing on accident prevention or not hitting people at all. In all other walks of life we make people better at their job by training them. Why don't we apply this rational to driving?
What is your evidence that it isn't apllied. What do you know of road safery efforts by your local and district councils and police and fire and rescue services? Very little I expect. Despite the patronising tone. The dominant road safety rational is lowering speed limits and enforcement. It's cheap and creates revenue as well as appeasing resident nimbly ism.
Skyline33 said:
The first though is to recognise the vested interests within what has become the speeding industry. Should it be the case that councils who set the limits and the police that enforce it benefit financially from the proceeds of awareness courses?
Now you are a conspiracy theorist. Police and councils benefit only by the offender paying for the enforcement costs. Quite frankly I think that is exactly who should pay, not you and not me. What a great shame offenders committing other types of offences cannot pay the costs of detection and disposal of their offences. That would relieve council tax and income tax payers of a massive burden. There should be a new set of laws to enable this.Where is the conspiracy here. It's a documents fact that councils and police receive a cut from awareness courses. They are incentivised to maximise that revenue by enforcing and lowering speed limits. This means that other solutions will be dismissed as they don't produce a revenue stream.
Skyline33 said:
Shouldn't we question speed limits set for social reasons (to 'encourage modal shift) and ask whether they actually are detrimental to road safety?
Well ask away. There is more detriment to road safety by defiance of them than the limits being there. Speed limits set at artificially low levels encourage disrespect of all limits. They increase the likelihood of frustration and risky overtakes. They also end speed limits role of highlighting accident black spots.
In short totally wrong
Skyline33 said:
There will always be a role for enforcement on our roads to deal with the minority of dheads but what ever speed you set a limit at, drivers will be required to drive to the conditions which severely compromises its effectiveness.
That makes no sense. What relationship to conditions does the speed limit have and how does a speed limit force drivers to drive to any conditions? You are not joining your thoughts up.heads but what ever speed you set a limit at, drivers will be required to drive to the conditions which severely compromises its effectiveness. What could be clearer? An urban speed limit set at say 30 may be fine on a sunny summer afternoon but dangerous on a freezing January morning. Drivers are expected to set their speed according to the conditions. The 30mph speed limit on the freezing January morning bares no resemblance what so ever to the safe speed for the conditions at that time. Therefore the most important skill a driver can learn is how to drive to the conditions.
Skyline33 said:
Far better to educate people to improve hazard perception, concentration and anticipation.
One of the major disposal methods for a speeding offence is a course to do just that. Not only that but the course proceeds are funding the enforcement. tapereel said:
vonhosen said:
Skyline33 said:
The point I am making is that speed enforcement and speed limits are used inappropriately to try to solve all and any road safety problems.
They are not used to try & solve all and any road safety problems. To claim they are is foolish.They aren't used to try & deal with drink driving, mobile phone use, defective tyres etc etc.
Other enforcement does take place on many aspects of road safety.
The speed enforcement systems are used to detect and to evidence othe road traffic offences. Mobile phone, seat belts, dodgy number plates, unbelted children, excess passengers etc. are all offences that can be and are dealt with.
How does that work? What does it have to do with speed enforcement?
I see nobody really address my earlier question of "what carnage?"
I still say that, given the millions/billions of road user journeys and miles every day, week and year, the casualty rate is incredibly low. Isn't this a game of chasing ever-decreasing returns?
The roads are possibly safer than homes or hospitals. If the aim is to save life, wouldn't it be better to target the money somewhere else?
I still say that, given the millions/billions of road user journeys and miles every day, week and year, the casualty rate is incredibly low. Isn't this a game of chasing ever-decreasing returns?
The roads are possibly safer than homes or hospitals. If the aim is to save life, wouldn't it be better to target the money somewhere else?
heebeegeetee said:
I see nobody really address my earlier question of "what carnage?"
I still say that, given the millions/billions of road user journeys and miles every day, week and year, the casualty rate is incredibly low. Isn't this a game of chasing ever-decreasing returns?
The roads are possibly safer than homes or hospitals. If the aim is to save life, wouldn't it be better to target the money somewhere else?
Brake are clear about the carnage. www.brake.org.ukI still say that, given the millions/billions of road user journeys and miles every day, week and year, the casualty rate is incredibly low. Isn't this a game of chasing ever-decreasing returns?
The roads are possibly safer than homes or hospitals. If the aim is to save life, wouldn't it be better to target the money somewhere else?
anthonym said:
heebeegeetee said:
I see nobody really address my earlier question of "what carnage?"
I still say that, given the millions/billions of road user journeys and miles every day, week and year, the casualty rate is incredibly low. Isn't this a game of chasing ever-decreasing returns?
The roads are possibly safer than homes or hospitals. If the aim is to save life, wouldn't it be better to target the money somewhere else?
Brake are clear about the carnage. www.brake.org.ukI still say that, given the millions/billions of road user journeys and miles every day, week and year, the casualty rate is incredibly low. Isn't this a game of chasing ever-decreasing returns?
The roads are possibly safer than homes or hospitals. If the aim is to save life, wouldn't it be better to target the money somewhere else?
anthonym said:
Brake are clear about the carnage. www.brake.org.uk
No, they're not at all. They use highly emotive language and quote figures with no context. According to Brake everyone who has ever been harmed is a victim, and no-one has ever harmed themselves.
Every day in the UK approximately 40 million people will take to the roads and every single day more than 99.9% return unharmed. Apparently the average trip length is 7 miles so that's approximate 280 million miles travelled daily.
When you place the casualty rates in context road travel can be seen exceptionally safe. You're more likely to die in an accident in your home or in hospital.
The Brake website is ok if you simply believe all you read. The minute you apply any scrutiny to the site, it's not so good.
It's possibly just a scare-mongering site that asks for money.
Edited by heebeegeetee on Sunday 16th August 01:45
vonhosen said:
anthonym said:
vonhosen said:
It doesn't matter which percentile you use, it won't tell you the maximum safe speed in optimum conditions.
You made a statement as fact about maximum safe speeds. I called you on it & asked you to back it up.
You can't.
Rather than accuse of pedantry, you could just admit that your statement was wrong.
he isn't wrongYou made a statement as fact about maximum safe speeds. I called you on it & asked you to back it up.
You can't.
Rather than accuse of pedantry, you could just admit that your statement was wrong.
The speed limit (or 85th percentile) does not tell you the maximum safe speed in optimal conditions for the road.
(Which is what he has been claiming).
Toltec said:
vonhosen said:
anthonym said:
vonhosen said:
It doesn't matter which percentile you use, it won't tell you the maximum safe speed in optimum conditions.
You made a statement as fact about maximum safe speeds. I called you on it & asked you to back it up.
You can't.
Rather than accuse of pedantry, you could just admit that your statement was wrong.
he isn't wrongYou made a statement as fact about maximum safe speeds. I called you on it & asked you to back it up.
You can't.
Rather than accuse of pedantry, you could just admit that your statement was wrong.
The speed limit (or 85th percentile) does not tell you the maximum safe speed in optimal conditions for the road.
(Which is what he has been claiming).
here's a bit about the 85th percentile speed, just googled and scan read.
http://metrocount.com/downloads/flyers/Speed_analy...
http://metrocount.com/downloads/flyers/Speed_analy...
Pete317 said:
Willy Nilly said:
anonymous said:
[redacted]
The reduction in death rates is almost certainly down to crashes in modern vehicles being more survivable than ever before along with better medical practices. By 2000 the NCAP safety ratings on cars was really starting to gain momentum, now 15 years later there arn't many pre 2000 car around without the various safety feaures that make crashing more survivable. But it's lower speed limits/speed cameras that get the credit. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa...
Edited by Pete317 on Saturday 15th August 22:56
The way the lowering of speed limits are sold is that 40 = certain death, 30 = not bad, 20 = you'll probably sprint away from the incident in better health than before. No matter what speed you get hit at it is going to be traumatic and personally, I'd rather not be hit my a vehicle. People may well be taking more risks in a 20 limit that they would never contemplate in a 30+ limit.
flemke said:
Do we know that the 90th percentile drivers are less safe driving at that 90th %ile speed than they would be if they were driving at a lower speed?
It is a statistical analysis, it tells you nothing about individuals. I agree with Von in that the 85th percentile speed is not the maximum safe speed for a road. It is instead in the range that most of the safest drivers choose to use.
Willy Nilly said:
It might be a blip or a couple of bad crashes skewing the figures.
The way the lowering of speed limits are sold is that 40 = certain death, 30 = not bad, 20 = you'll probably sprint away from the incident in better health than before. No matter what speed you get hit at it is going to be traumatic and personally, I'd rather not be hit my a vehicle. Peopledestrians may well be taking more risks in a 20 limit that they would never contemplate in a 30+ limit.
The way the lowering of speed limits are sold is that 40 = certain death, 30 = not bad, 20 = you'll probably sprint away from the incident in better health than before. No matter what speed you get hit at it is going to be traumatic and personally, I'd rather not be hit my a vehicle. Pe
heebeegeetee said:
anthonym said:
The carnage on the roads needs to be stopped. It is not being stopped. Current methods are not working and the powers that be are wondering why, saying that MORE enforcement of what is not working is the only way.
What carnage though? Driving is very, *very* safe. I mean, you can make it less safe if you want, but nevertheless overall it is incredibly safe.Considering the massive increase in car ownership and use over that time, as well as the increase in the UK's population - i'd say it is pretty remarkable.
heebeegeetee said:
I see nobody really address my earlier question of "what carnage?"
I still say that, given the millions/billions of road user journeys and miles every day, week and year, the casualty rate is incredibly low. Isn't this a game of chasing ever-decreasing returns?
The roads are possibly safer than homes or hospitals. If the aim is to save life, wouldn't it be better to target the money somewhere else?
So why do we still have the constant push for lower speed limits, more enforcement, more traffic calming, more blanket 20mph limits etc?I still say that, given the millions/billions of road user journeys and miles every day, week and year, the casualty rate is incredibly low. Isn't this a game of chasing ever-decreasing returns?
The roads are possibly safer than homes or hospitals. If the aim is to save life, wouldn't it be better to target the money somewhere else?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff