speed limits: do they work? (of course not)

[flemke]

Dave Finney said:

Speed limits: do they work?

Scientific trials could prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" the effect of speed limits on crash rates. Not only that, they are also simple and cheap (it's expensive to pay analysts to estimate what effect might have been achieved).

The problem is that scientific trials have never been used and, in the absence of such trials, the evidence on the effect of speed limits is weak at best. What we're left with then is, essentially, each persons opinion.
http://speedcamerareport.co.uk/02_scientific_trial...

A key question is that, even if speed limits did "work" - that is, if they did save some approximate percentage of lives - would that in itself be sufficient to justify them?

There are issues of practicality and of personal liberty. Reasonable people may disagree on those issues, but they cannot simply be ignored.

[anonymous-user]

flemke said:

Dave Finney said:

Speed limits: do they work?

Scientific trials could prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" the effect of speed limits on crash rates. Not only that, they are also simple and cheap (it's expensive to pay analysts to estimate what effect might have been achieved).

The problem is that scientific trials have never been used and, in the absence of such trials, the evidence on the effect of speed limits is weak at best. What we're left with then is, essentially, each persons opinion.
http://speedcamerareport.co.uk/02_scientific_trial...

A key question is that, even if speed limits did "work" - that is, if they did save some approximate percentage of lives - would that in itself be sufficient to justify them?

There are issues of practicality and of personal liberty. Reasonable people may disagree on those issues, but they cannot simply be ignored.

Personal liberty is an interesting point. If we as a society gave people the freedom to drive at whatever speed they liked (up to, say, 80mph) then we would have to remove the liabilities that reside with highways authorities/designers to provide a safe driving environment - otherwise people could drive at silly speeds along twisty roads, kill someone, and then sue the authority (or engineer responsible) for not "doing something" to slow traffic down.

You can put up signs all day long, but it is the threat of sanction that REALLY makes people behave. Look at average speed camera sites. Short of a convoy vehicle physically blocking the road, that is the only way to REALLY make traffic stick to limits.

Unfortunately, very often, you give an inch, and a mile is taken.

[flemke]

OpulentBob said:

flemke said:

Dave Finney said:

Speed limits: do they work?

Scientific trials could prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" the effect of speed limits on crash rates. Not only that, they are also simple and cheap (it's expensive to pay analysts to estimate what effect might have been achieved).

The problem is that scientific trials have never been used and, in the absence of such trials, the evidence on the effect of speed limits is weak at best. What we're left with then is, essentially, each persons opinion.
http://speedcamerareport.co.uk/02_scientific_trial...

A key question is that, even if speed limits did "work" - that is, if they did save some approximate percentage of lives - would that in itself be sufficient to justify them?

There are issues of practicality and of personal liberty. Reasonable people may disagree on those issues, but they cannot simply be ignored.

Personal liberty is an interesting point. If we as a society gave people the freedom to drive at whatever speed they liked (up to, say, 80mph) then we would have to remove the liabilities that reside with highways authorities/designers to provide a safe driving environment - otherwise people could drive at silly speeds along twisty roads, kill someone, and then sue the authority (or engineer responsible) for not "doing something" to slow traffic down.

You can put up signs all day long, but it is the threat of sanction that REALLY makes people behave. Look at average speed camera sites. Short of a convoy vehicle physically blocking the road, that is the only way to REALLY make traffic stick to limits.

Unfortunately, very often, you give an inch, and a mile is taken.

That is not the way it works on the most unambiguous test we have: derestricted Autobahn.
It's not the way that it worked when they removed speed limits in Montana, and AFAIK it's not the way that it works on the Isle of Man or the way that it did work in The Northern Territory.
What REALLY, REALLY gets people to "behave" (as in, "to act responsibly", not as in, "to do what they are told") is not the threat of sanction but rather the fear of death. If drivers were better educated, and had a greater appreciation for what they were doing and its potential consequences, speed limits would not be necessary.

[anonymous-user]

flemke said:

OpulentBob said:

flemke said:

Dave Finney said:

Speed limits: do they work?

Scientific trials could prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" the effect of speed limits on crash rates. Not only that, they are also simple and cheap (it's expensive to pay analysts to estimate what effect might have been achieved).

The problem is that scientific trials have never been used and, in the absence of such trials, the evidence on the effect of speed limits is weak at best. What we're left with then is, essentially, each persons opinion.
http://speedcamerareport.co.uk/02_scientific_trial...

A key question is that, even if speed limits did "work" - that is, if they did save some approximate percentage of lives - would that in itself be sufficient to justify them?

There are issues of practicality and of personal liberty. Reasonable people may disagree on those issues, but they cannot simply be ignored.

Personal liberty is an interesting point. If we as a society gave people the freedom to drive at whatever speed they liked (up to, say, 80mph) then we would have to remove the liabilities that reside with highways authorities/designers to provide a safe driving environment - otherwise people could drive at silly speeds along twisty roads, kill someone, and then sue the authority (or engineer responsible) for not "doing something" to slow traffic down.

You can put up signs all day long, but it is the threat of sanction that REALLY makes people behave. Look at average speed camera sites. Short of a convoy vehicle physically blocking the road, that is the only way to REALLY make traffic stick to limits.

Unfortunately, very often, you give an inch, and a mile is taken.

That is not the way it works on the most unambiguous test we have: derestricted Autobahn.
It's not the way that it worked when they removed speed limits in Montana, and AFAIK it's not the way that it works on the Isle of Man or the way that it did work in The Northern Territory.
What REALLY, REALLY gets people to "behave" (as in, "to act responsibly", not as in, "to do what they are told") is not the threat of sanction but rather the fear of death. If drivers were better educated, and had a greater appreciation for what they were doing and its potential consequences, speed limits would not be necessary.

Fair comment - I was talking more about speeds within built up areas as opposed to open roads. For what it's worth, I would quite happily advocate overnight (proper) derestrictions on extra-urban DCs and motorways, say 2200-0500 no max limit - HGVs included to allow swifter overtakes and less lane blocking. Oh to have the lane discipline of a German autobahn!

[Pete317]

vonhosen said:

Pete317 said:

vonhosen said:

Pete317 said:

vonhosen said:

I don't have a problem with controls for a wider social benefit either. You could safely go through a red light for instance, but I don't have problem with you not being permitted to for the wider systemic benefit, even if in that particular instance you could have. It makes for clearer boundaries/expectations that will have an appreciable benefit on the wider system rather than just looking at your individual incident.

You're the good shepherd, we are the sheep. Baaaa!

Yes, you can safely go through a red light at times, just as you could at times drive safely the wrong way down a motorway, for example.
But the reason people don't indulge in such behaviour is because it's patently clear to even the least intelligent of us what's wrong with doing so. We would not do so even if there was no legal sanction.

What rot.

If it were not illegal to go through a red light why wouldn't you use your judgement as to whether it was safe to cross? Just like you'd use your judgement as to how fast you could safely go?

I expect the majority of drivers would cross where they considered they could safely do so, just like they do crossing a junction from a give way or stop line.

Same with say solid white line systems.

You just can't see the difference, can you?

Tell me, how many people were prosecuted for going through a red last year?
And how many were prosecuted for speeding?

What's that got to do with the price of fish?

The difference in numbers should tell you that the one is routine and the other exceptional.
Going through a red light, whether accidentally or intentionally, is exceptional behaviour, whereas doing such and such a speed is, well, doing such and such a speed - routine behaviour - you're either doing one speed or you're doing some other speed.
In the absence of limits it's neither here nor there what speed you're doing, provided it's within the safe envelope.
It's the limit that makes the difference, making your routine behaviour either legal or illegal. This means you now have to make a conscious effort to do one speed, and not necessarily the speed you would have routinely done. Slip up on that conscious effort and you risk a fine and points for simply behaving ordinarily.

Edited by Pete317 on Tuesday 18th August 07:51

[Moonhawk]

flemke said:

A key question is that, even if speed limits did "work" - that is, if they did save some approximate percentage of lives - would that in itself be sufficient to justify them?

There are issues of practicality and of personal liberty. Reasonable people may disagree on those issues, but they cannot simply be ignored.

Another question is, even if a correlation between accident rate and speed is proven scientifically - where do we set the limit?

Somebody would have to suggest an 'acceptable' accident rate in order to set the speed limits accordingly. You can't set one variable unless you have limits on what changing that variable is supposed to achieve - bearing in mind we have to maintain a workable road network.

Is anyone going to stick their neck out and suggest what an 'acceptable' accident rate might be?

Edited by Moonhawk on Tuesday 18th August 08:45

[tapereel]

Pete317 said:

vonhosen said:

Pete317 said:

vonhosen said:

Pete317 said:

vonhosen said:

I don't have a problem with controls for a wider social benefit either. You could safely go through a red light for instance, but I don't have problem with you not being permitted to for the wider systemic benefit, even if in that particular instance you could have. It makes for clearer boundaries/expectations that will have an appreciable benefit on the wider system rather than just looking at your individual incident.

You're the good shepherd, we are the sheep. Baaaa!

Yes, you can safely go through a red light at times, just as you could at times drive safely the wrong way down a motorway, for example.
But the reason people don't indulge in such behaviour is because it's patently clear to even the least intelligent of us what's wrong with doing so. We would not do so even if there was no legal sanction.

What rot.

If it were not illegal to go through a red light why wouldn't you use your judgement as to whether it was safe to cross? Just like you'd use your judgement as to how fast you could safely go?

I expect the majority of drivers would cross where they considered they could safely do so, just like they do crossing a junction from a give way or stop line.

Same with say solid white line systems.

You just can't see the difference, can you?

Tell me, how many people were prosecuted for going through a red last year?
And how many were prosecuted for speeding?

What's that got to do with the price of fish?

The difference in numbers should tell you that the one is routine and the other exceptional.
Going through a red light, whether accidentally or intentionally, is exceptional behaviour, whereas doing such and such a speed is, well, doing such and such a speed - routine behaviour - you're either doing one speed or you're doing some other speed.
In the absence of limits it's neither here nor there what speed you're doing, provided it's within the safe envelope.
It's the limit that makes the difference, making your routine behaviour either legal or illegal. This means you now have to make a conscious effort to do one speed, and not necessarily the speed you would have routinely done. Slip up on that conscious effort and you risk a fine and points for simply behaving ordinarily.

Edited by Pete317 on Tuesday 18th August 07:51

The use of a red-light enforcement system is also exceptional; they are not often used in comparison to speed enforcement systems. It is no surprise then that the number of red light violations detected is also smaller.

[robinessex]

vonhosen said:

robinessex said:

The late L J K Setright, probably the most intelligent motoring journalist ever, said there should be only 1 motoring offence, dangerous driving.

Many probably more intelligent people don't agree with him.

I've no idea if you ever read his articles, but I'd be surprised if you could find anyone more intelligent. Which is a generic term anyway.

[tapereel]

robinessex said:

The late L J K Setright, probably the most intelligent motoring journalist ever, said there should be only 1 motoring offence, dangerous driving.

With a comment like that as a eulogy it doesn't bode well for the intelligence of the rest of the motoring press.

Did he say it after being caught for a lesser offence?

[Pete317]

tapereel said:

The use of a red-light enforcement system is also exceptional; they are not often used in comparison to speed enforcement systems. It is no surprise then that the number of red light violations detected is also smaller.

Do you imagine for one moment that there wouldn't be a lot more enforcement if people routinely went through red lights?

Doesn't detract from my point.

The behaviour is exceptional, regardless of the detection.

Edited by Pete317 on Tuesday 18th August 10:10

[Pete317]

tapereel said:

With a comment like that as a eulogy it doesn't bode well for the intelligence of the rest of the motoring press.

Did he say it after being caught for a lesser offence?

What are your notable achievements then?

I just did a quick google for "tapereel", and apparently you don't exist outside of PH

[tapereel]

Pete317 said:

tapereel said:

With a comment like that as a eulogy it doesn't bode well for the intelligence of the rest of the motoring press.

Did he say it after being caught for a lesser offence?

What are your notable achievements then?

I just did a quick google for "tapereel", and apparently you don't exist outside of PH

I don't need any to make that comment. Perhaps if you cited the article in which this gem of wisdom was quoted from it would assist because on its own it seems to be nothing more than a perfunctory remark by your hero.

[Pete317]

tapereel said:

Pete317 said:

tapereel said:

With a comment like that as a eulogy it doesn't bode well for the intelligence of the rest of the motoring press.

Did he say it after being caught for a lesser offence?

What are your notable achievements then?

I just did a quick google for "tapereel", and apparently you don't exist outside of PH

I don't need any to make that comment. Perhaps if you cited the article in which this gem of wisdom was quoted from it would assist because on its own it seems to be nothing more than a perfunctory remark by your hero.

I don't need to cite any article because it wasn't me who quoted it - it would, I should imagine, be found in some motoring magazine.

And what makes you assume he's any sort of hero to me?

It's just that you see fit to attack someone's intelligence on the strength of a single context-less comment, especially when that someone has actually achieved something in life and you're just an internet nobody.

Edited by Pete317 on Tuesday 18th August 09:46

[robinessex]

If you simply google LKJ Setright, you will find the most extraordinary number of references, all referring to his enormous intellect and intelligence. The guy simply was the best ever. To call him just a Motoring Journalist is to simplistic. His reference to there being a need for only one motoring offence, dangerous driving, was in Car magazine I believe, as aside from Autosport, it was the only car magazine I ever read.

[cptsideways]

An appropriate time for me to post as I think I might have a ticket in the post.

Why? I exceeded a limit in a typical scenario. The reason is I was driving "safely" on a dual lane road in a semi urban enviroment where any normal driver would suggest the limit might be national or maybe 50 just going by what it looks like & the number of hazards about ie its not a pedestrian or residential area. Easy mistake to make not a safety mistake by any means, just a mistake to ones licence.

In fact the bit of road in question is a recently introduced 30 limit & as I have gleaned is now a rich picking ground for the camera Stazi. Cynical yes, safety my arse.

Immediately prior to the ping I was cut up by a woman off the roundabout in the wrong lane & had to take avoiding action. The golf immediatley in front of me had 4 chavs all with no seatbelts.

[anonymous-user]

cptsideways said:

An appropriate time for me to post as I think I might have a ticket in the post.

Why? I exceeded a limit in a typical scenario. The reason is I was driving "safely" on a dual lane road in a semi urban enviroment where any normal driver would suggest the limit might be national or maybe 50 just going by what it looks like & the number of hazards about ie its not a pedestrian or residential area. Easy mistake to make not a safety mistake by any means, just a mistake to ones licence.

In fact the bit of road in question is a recently introduced 30 limit & as I have gleaned is now a rich picking ground for the camera Stazi. Cynical yes, safety my arse.

Immediately prior to the ping I was cut up by a woman off the roundabout in the wrong lane & had to take avoiding action. The golf immediatley in front of me had 4 chavs all with no seatbelts.

If a mobile camera, then I'd be rightly pissed off too.

[flemke]

tapereel said:

robinessex said:

The late L J K Setright, probably the most intelligent motoring journalist ever, said there should be only 1 motoring offence, dangerous driving.

With a comment like that as a eulogy it doesn't bode well for the intelligence of the rest of the motoring press.

Did he say it after being caught for a lesser offence?

Your caustic judgment of Setright's point implies that you believe that your own intelligence easily exceeds his. Perhaps it does.

Rather than merely trying to slap down what he said, however, would you kindly articulate why you believe that the concept that there should be only one motoring offence, for "Dangerous Driving", is so wrong-headed?

[jith]

flemke said:

Your caustic judgment of Setright's point implies that you believe that your own intelligence easily exceeds his. Perhaps it does.

My god, it's Callaghan we're talking about! Think of a small number, half it, half it again and you are near his IQ!

J

[V8 Fettler]

OpulentBob said:

I know. It's ridiculous. The Councillor wants people to think of him as some sort of crusader, whereas in reality I think he lives nearby.

Another scheme he's pushed for is moving a pedestrian crossing away from a desire line next to a roundabout (his perception is that the signals at the crossing cause congestion - they don't, it's the sheer amount of traffic trying to use a 2-lane roundabout), and pushed it 250m away on the far side from most of the peds. This means that all the school kids that used to use the crossing correctly will just run across the roundabout instead, and I predict a significant kid's face/car bonnet interface before the winter is out. I've had to ask my technicians to do the design but not sign anything, and we'll get the Councillor to sign it off. But the Cllr thinks it will impress the motorists, and simply ignores anything the engineers say. Even the contractor employed to do the works thinks it's a bad idea.

This is a bizarre approach to design, are there no risk assessments to support your view? Doesn't CDM apply?

[anonymous-user]

V8 Fettler said:

OpulentBob said:

I know. It's ridiculous. The Councillor wants people to think of him as some sort of crusader, whereas in reality I think he lives nearby.

Another scheme he's pushed for is moving a pedestrian crossing away from a desire line next to a roundabout (his perception is that the signals at the crossing cause congestion - they don't, it's the sheer amount of traffic trying to use a 2-lane roundabout), and pushed it 250m away on the far side from most of the peds. This means that all the school kids that used to use the crossing correctly will just run across the roundabout instead, and I predict a significant kid's face/car bonnet interface before the winter is out. I've had to ask my technicians to do the design but not sign anything, and we'll get the Councillor to sign it off. But the Cllr thinks it will impress the motorists, and simply ignores anything the engineers say. Even the contractor employed to do the works thinks it's a bad idea.

This is a bizarre approach to design, are there no risk assessments to support your view? Doesn't CDM apply?

Yes and yes. We are spending a st load of money putting in anticlimb barriers to stop the kids going over at the roundabout but where there's a will there's a way. All we can do is make him aware and submit an unsigned design, as the exec Councillor he can sign it off (and any associated safer audits etc) and get it put in.

If we could resist in any stronger way, we would.