speed limits: do they work? (of course not)
Discussion
Isn't the claim: "I have a driving licence, therefore I can do whatever I like, and speeding is a fundamental human right". Also, isn't the main troll that is being fed by this thread the OP?
Now I am off to drive a car, and, guess what, I am going to exceed at least one speed limit. I have six points on my licence. I might get more. Freedom will live on. Civilisation will not collapse.
Now I am off to drive a car, and, guess what, I am going to exceed at least one speed limit. I have six points on my licence. I might get more. Freedom will live on. Civilisation will not collapse.
I would say that on the whole speed limits do work to a reasonable extent. How many of us scream through 30 limits, through towns and past schools at 95mph? You'll never stop Mr joyrider racing his mate in a Corsa showing off but I think the general population rarely as matter of course exceed the speed limits of residential carriageways by an awful lot.
Speed Badger said:
I would say that on the whole speed limits do work to a reasonable extent. How many of us scream through 30 limits, through towns and past schools at 95mph? You'll never stop Mr joyrider racing his mate in a Corsa showing off but I think the general population rarely as matter of course exceed the speed limits of residential carriageways by an awful lot.
How many of us would scream through residential areas if speed limits didn't exist?Pete317 said:
How many of us would scream through residential areas if speed limits didn't exist?
Few. But despite the stats of survivability at 30mph vs 40mph many would drive at 40-45 in a built up area.People are very bad at determining true risk - or rather - they might be good at approximating risk to themselves, but they are poor at judging risk to others.
I know what the Op means, there are lots of inappropriate speed limits, the focus is too much towards speeding as being the issue when the real issue is poor driving skills, poor observation and poor anticipation.
I have heard people who I know are awful drivers, state that they are safe because the don't break the speed limit. The fact they drive 6 inches from the car in front whilst admiring the scenery isn't an issue as long as they are driving below the limit.
I have heard people who I know are awful drivers, state that they are safe because the don't break the speed limit. The fact they drive 6 inches from the car in front whilst admiring the scenery isn't an issue as long as they are driving below the limit.
Vaud said:
Pete317 said:
How many of us would scream through residential areas if speed limits didn't exist?
Few. But despite the stats of survivability at 30mph vs 40mph many would drive at 40-45 in a built up area.People are very bad at determining true risk - or rather - they might be good at approximating risk to themselves, but they are poor at judging risk to others.
Besides it could also be argued that pedestrians are less careless about crossing the roads where speeds are higher.
ETA: BTW Where does that thing about people being bad at determining risk come from?
Edited by Pete317 on Friday 14th August 16:32
Pete317 said:
I would suggest that anyone taking the proverbial would quickly be pulled into line by their peers.
Besides it could also be argued that pedestrians are less careless about crossing the roads where speeds are higher.
Doubt it very much.Besides it could also be argued that pedestrians are less careless about crossing the roads where speeds are higher.
Not sure raising the speed limits is a good way to increase pedestrian safety... one of the main groups at risk is children who do not have a good perception of risk?
blueg33 said:
I know what the Op means, there are lots of inappropriate speed limits, the focus is too much towards speeding as being the issue when the real issue is poor driving skills, poor observation and poor anticipation.
I have heard people who I know are awful drivers, state that they are safe because the don't break the speed limit. The fact they drive 6 inches from the car in front whilst admiring the scenery isn't an issue as long as they are driving below the limit.
This is my interpretation too.I have heard people who I know are awful drivers, state that they are safe because the don't break the speed limit. The fact they drive 6 inches from the car in front whilst admiring the scenery isn't an issue as long as they are driving below the limit.
Breadvan72 said:
Now I am off to drive a car, and, guess what, I am going to exceed at least one speed limit. I have six points on my licence. I might get more. Freedom will live on. Civilisation will not collapse.
Kitten and baby killer! in fact you are probably going to kill some baby kittens!Vaud said:
Doubt it very much.
Not sure raising the speed limits is a good way to increase pedestrian safety... one of the main groups at risk is children who do not have a good perception of risk?
Who said anything about raising speed limits?Not sure raising the speed limits is a good way to increase pedestrian safety... one of the main groups at risk is children who do not have a good perception of risk?
I just made the observation that pedestrians tend to take more care in places where speeds are higher.
And children have parents and minders, who are responsible for their safety.
When I was a kid, I wasn't allowed anywhere near the road unaccompanied. And that was back in the days when the traffic was a lot lighter than it is now.
blueg33 said:
Breadvan72 said:
Now I am off to drive a car, and, guess what, I am going to exceed at least one speed limit. I have six points on my licence. I might get more. Freedom will live on. Civilisation will not collapse.
Kitten and baby killer! in fact you are probably going to kill some baby kittens!I'm with the OP on this, the emphasis on speed being the hinge on road safety is wrong. Driving isn't an exact science, obviously if you hit something faster, the bang will be bigger, but going faster doesn't mean you will crash.
I put it to the jury that most speed limits are too low, some at least 30mph too low. Motorway speed limits need upping to 90 and I can't think of a single road the warrants a 20mph speed limit.
Forward speed is very important to me at work, hence the fancy transmission, radar giving true ground speed and speedo that give speed to 2 decimal places below 2kph. Sometimes I have to get a calculator out to work out how fast to go because it's part of an equation. But get in the car and I am no longer capable of judging speed. It's b
ks.
I put it to the jury that most speed limits are too low, some at least 30mph too low. Motorway speed limits need upping to 90 and I can't think of a single road the warrants a 20mph speed limit.
Forward speed is very important to me at work, hence the fancy transmission, radar giving true ground speed and speedo that give speed to 2 decimal places below 2kph. Sometimes I have to get a calculator out to work out how fast to go because it's part of an equation. But get in the car and I am no longer capable of judging speed. It's b
ks. LordGrover said:
blueg33 said:
I know what the Op means, there are lots of inappropriate speed limits, the focus is too much towards speeding as being the issue when the real issue is poor driving skills, poor observation and poor anticipation.
I have heard people who I know are awful drivers, state that they are safe because the don't break the speed limit. The fact they drive 6 inches from the car in front whilst admiring the scenery isn't an issue as long as they are driving below the limit.
This is my interpretation too.I have heard people who I know are awful drivers, state that they are safe because the don't break the speed limit. The fact they drive 6 inches from the car in front whilst admiring the scenery isn't an issue as long as they are driving below the limit.
Where's the road safety campaign shouting, "IT DOESN'T MATTER IF YOU'RE DRIVING AT 39 IN A 40 LIMIT IF EVERYTHING ABOUT YOUR OBSERVATION AND AWARENESS IS WRONG. YOU ARE MORE LIKELY TO CAUSE AN ACCIDENT LIKE THIS THAN IF YOU ARE DRIVING AT 43 WHILE OBSERVING CORRECTLY AND LEAVING SUFFICIENT SPACE TO TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION SHOULD THE NEED ARISE.
HELL, IT WON'T KILL YOU TO DRIVE AT 80 ON THE MOTORWAY AS LONG AS YOU LEAVE ENOUGH SPACE TO THE CAR IN FRONT AND USE THE CORRECT LANE"
anthonym said:
It's been a while since I posted here, in fact I am not sure if I ever have, just cannot recall. I'll see my time and posts count when I post this.
I am interested in changing the world's (UN, EU, WHO, BMJ) approach to speed. To recognise that speed does not kill - every time someone breaks the speed limit, someone doesn't die., for example.
Seems to me that ALL the anti speed pressure comes from vested interests. For example years ago when HMG threatened to shut down 50% of the railway network, Transport 2000 was set up by rail unions (and others anti car) to drive cars off the road through taking the joy out of driving, they then leveraged other anti car groups and since then "charities" have used the bereaved as weapons and politicians are faced with mums and kids bearing placards demanding speed traps - all because the idea that passing over an empty piece of tarmac at one speed as compared to another speed alone is going to cause death on said empty piece of road. Since ancient times it has been seen that attempts to force change on the people do not work, and this includes driver behaviour. People respond to support and education, not threats. Threats are responded to with counter measures and in the case of enforcement alienates society from the police who need support from said society in order to protect said society. "plod" are part of society and their being tasked with criminalising 50% of drivers, who by the way are the responsible adults who in the rest of life make that society work, is really not a good idea, especially when it has been shown that not only do speed traps not work, neither do political speed limits.
Question I have here is, is PH a place to find like minded people who may be interested in doing something about all this? Change would not be fast, but it could be made inevitable - debunking the faulty research has been done (that's not for here, too long and complex and as we know BS beats brains especially online), but being right doesn't achieve anything on its own, especially in the face of well funded vested interests, well organised and professional. They will first and always "attack the man" as can be seen in every case where individuals try to take on the establishment - get yourself on Breakfast TV and you will find yourself up against a nine year lass who tragically has lost her daddy in a road crash. Nothing to be said. You lose.
Anyone prefers to engage by pm is welcome.
oh yes, knowing PH, you can take the piss, mock (both keyboard simple for puerile idiots) - or get involved. DO SOMETHING. Question is: what? Stopping the carnage is what it's about - because that is not what is going on, to the profit of those involved.
How is it that the population of drivers are the only group excluded from representation in road safety policy?
In my view it is all about respect. The law and government has to respect the people. Failure to do so will mean the people do not respect the law and government, which leads in the end to anarchy, in this case on our roads. You cannot force drivers, you must lead them with support and education etc. Radar signs, not radar traps, for example.
Anthony - petrolhead and pissed off with the bull.
Let's create a rebellion. F R E E D O M !!!! Stay awake, Stay sharp, Stay alive!
What?I am interested in changing the world's (UN, EU, WHO, BMJ) approach to speed. To recognise that speed does not kill - every time someone breaks the speed limit, someone doesn't die., for example.
Seems to me that ALL the anti speed pressure comes from vested interests. For example years ago when HMG threatened to shut down 50% of the railway network, Transport 2000 was set up by rail unions (and others anti car) to drive cars off the road through taking the joy out of driving, they then leveraged other anti car groups and since then "charities" have used the bereaved as weapons and politicians are faced with mums and kids bearing placards demanding speed traps - all because the idea that passing over an empty piece of tarmac at one speed as compared to another speed alone is going to cause death on said empty piece of road. Since ancient times it has been seen that attempts to force change on the people do not work, and this includes driver behaviour. People respond to support and education, not threats. Threats are responded to with counter measures and in the case of enforcement alienates society from the police who need support from said society in order to protect said society. "plod" are part of society and their being tasked with criminalising 50% of drivers, who by the way are the responsible adults who in the rest of life make that society work, is really not a good idea, especially when it has been shown that not only do speed traps not work, neither do political speed limits.
Question I have here is, is PH a place to find like minded people who may be interested in doing something about all this? Change would not be fast, but it could be made inevitable - debunking the faulty research has been done (that's not for here, too long and complex and as we know BS beats brains especially online), but being right doesn't achieve anything on its own, especially in the face of well funded vested interests, well organised and professional. They will first and always "attack the man" as can be seen in every case where individuals try to take on the establishment - get yourself on Breakfast TV and you will find yourself up against a nine year lass who tragically has lost her daddy in a road crash. Nothing to be said. You lose.
Anyone prefers to engage by pm is welcome.
oh yes, knowing PH, you can take the piss, mock (both keyboard simple for puerile idiots) - or get involved. DO SOMETHING. Question is: what? Stopping the carnage is what it's about - because that is not what is going on, to the profit of those involved.
How is it that the population of drivers are the only group excluded from representation in road safety policy?
In my view it is all about respect. The law and government has to respect the people. Failure to do so will mean the people do not respect the law and government, which leads in the end to anarchy, in this case on our roads. You cannot force drivers, you must lead them with support and education etc. Radar signs, not radar traps, for example.
Anthony - petrolhead and pissed off with the bull.
Let's create a rebellion. F R E E D O M !!!! Stay awake, Stay sharp, Stay alive!
Edited by anthonym on Friday 14th August 10:23
Edited by anthonym on Friday 14th August 12:32
Feeman of the land wibbler... ?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff