speed limits: do they work? (of course not)
Discussion
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.I expect you will now post some figures out of context - some figures that will have some high numbers no doubt - but I doubt you'll post them in the context of millions/billions of miles being driven daily in complete safety.
This post is a prime example of why, by and large, the "lads" who meet in the McDonalds car park every Friday/Saturday night in every town in this country are not members of Pistonheads, despite liking their cars.
Are some speed limits draconian and unsatisfactory? Sure.
Are speed limits in general necessary, and is enforcement of said limits necessary? Absolutely.
Are some speed limits draconian and unsatisfactory? Sure.
Are speed limits in general necessary, and is enforcement of said limits necessary? Absolutely.
anthonym said:
so we have detractors as follows:
DAMMIT a cyclist who thinks engaging in abusive mockery followed by "argument" is acceptable.
and to my surprise
HantsRat who appears to be a serving traffic police officer - is that right?
Entertainingly in addition to owning a number of bicycles I also own a highly modified performance car, and am shopping for a 996.DAMMIT a cyclist who thinks engaging in abusive mockery followed by "argument" is acceptable.
and to my surprise
HantsRat who appears to be a serving traffic police officer - is that right?
However you are quite right about me mocking you - but then you are making that an inevitable consequence of any response.
Obligatory "when do the schools go back?" q.
There are two problems here. Firstly most people ignore or simply don't understand the difference between too fast for the conditions and speeding. Speeding is driving faster then a number on a pole, too fast for the conditions causes accidents.
As conditions change, so does what the maximum safe speed actually is. Conditions change constantly, whether it be the weather or hazard density. The problem is that too many people (usually with vested interests) believe that a number on a stick, in increments of 10mph can denote what the safe speed for the conditions is. It used to be that the speed limit denoted the maximum safe speed in optimum condition but since speed limits are being reduced left right and centre they don't even do that any more.
Secondly, People are obsessed with speed limits because they can be measured. If they can be measured then penalties and sanctions can be handed out and revenue can be collected. The lower the limit the more penalties and sanctions are handed out.
Inatention is by far the biggest cause of accidents but it can't be measured so no tickets to issue, no headlines about the number of satanic kitten killing drivers who have been caught not matching the number on their speedo to a number on a stick!
The other problem of course is that the remedy for inatention is education. That won't do at all! drivers must be punished with points and fines - it's the only way to learn 'em! No the answer is speed cameras and lots of them? What was the question again?
We do need speed limits, but they have to be credible. We need to acknowledge that the most important skill in safe driving is hazard perception, concentration and driving to the conditions and the answer is education. The usual suspects will come back with the usual drivel - drivers can't be trusted, one speeding lunatic means they're all speeding lunatics. Of course the winner in the complete utter horse s
t awards - without speed limits they'd just drive everywhere as fast as possible!
As conditions change, so does what the maximum safe speed actually is. Conditions change constantly, whether it be the weather or hazard density. The problem is that too many people (usually with vested interests) believe that a number on a stick, in increments of 10mph can denote what the safe speed for the conditions is. It used to be that the speed limit denoted the maximum safe speed in optimum condition but since speed limits are being reduced left right and centre they don't even do that any more.
Secondly, People are obsessed with speed limits because they can be measured. If they can be measured then penalties and sanctions can be handed out and revenue can be collected. The lower the limit the more penalties and sanctions are handed out.
Inatention is by far the biggest cause of accidents but it can't be measured so no tickets to issue, no headlines about the number of satanic kitten killing drivers who have been caught not matching the number on their speedo to a number on a stick!
The other problem of course is that the remedy for inatention is education. That won't do at all! drivers must be punished with points and fines - it's the only way to learn 'em! No the answer is speed cameras and lots of them? What was the question again?
We do need speed limits, but they have to be credible. We need to acknowledge that the most important skill in safe driving is hazard perception, concentration and driving to the conditions and the answer is education. The usual suspects will come back with the usual drivel - drivers can't be trusted, one speeding lunatic means they're all speeding lunatics. Of course the winner in the complete utter horse s
t awards - without speed limits they'd just drive everywhere as fast as possible! Edited by Skyline33 on Friday 14th August 18:24
Edited by Skyline33 on Friday 14th August 18:26
heebeegeetee said:
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.
I expect you will now post some figures out of context - some figures that will have some high numbers no doubt - but I doubt you'll post them in the context of millions/billions of miles being driven daily in complete safety.
http://brake.org/I expect you will now post some figures out of context - some figures that will have some high numbers no doubt - but I doubt you'll post them in the context of millions/billions of miles being driven daily in complete safety.
http://www.brake.org.uk/campaigns/flagship-campaig...
Skyline33 said:
There are two problems here. Firstly most people ignore or simply don't understand the difference between too fast for the conditions and speeding. Speeding is driving faster then a number on a pole, too fast for the conditions causes accidents.
As conditions change, so does what the maximum safe speed actually is. Conditions change constantly, whether it be the weather or hazard density. The problem is that too many people (usually with vested interests) believe that a number on a stick, in increments of 10mph can denote what the safe speed for the conditions is. It used to be that the speed limit denoted the maximum safe speed in optimum condition but since speed limits are being reduced left right and centre they don't even do that any more.
Secondly, People are obsessed with speed limits because they can be measured. If they can be measured then penalties and sanctions can be handed out and revenue can be collected. The lower the limit the more penalties and sanctions are handed out.
Inatention is by far the biggest cause of accidents but it can't be measured so no tickets to issue, no headlines about the number of satanic kitten killing drivers who have been caught not matching the number on their speedo to a number on a stick!
The other problem of course is that the remedy for inatention is education. That won't do at all! drivers must be punished with points and fines - it's the only way to learn 'em! No the answer is speed cameras and lots of them? What was the question again?
We do need speed limits, but they have to be credible. We need to acknowledge that the most important skill in safe driving is hazard perception, concentration and driving to the conditions and the answer is education. The usual suspects will come back with the usual drivel - drivers can't be trusted, one speeding lunatic means they're all speeding lunatics. Of course the winner in the complete utter horse st awards - without speed limits they'd just drive everywhere as fast as possible!
Excellent post.As conditions change, so does what the maximum safe speed actually is. Conditions change constantly, whether it be the weather or hazard density. The problem is that too many people (usually with vested interests) believe that a number on a stick, in increments of 10mph can denote what the safe speed for the conditions is. It used to be that the speed limit denoted the maximum safe speed in optimum condition but since speed limits are being reduced left right and centre they don't even do that any more.
Secondly, People are obsessed with speed limits because they can be measured. If they can be measured then penalties and sanctions can be handed out and revenue can be collected. The lower the limit the more penalties and sanctions are handed out.
Inatention is by far the biggest cause of accidents but it can't be measured so no tickets to issue, no headlines about the number of satanic kitten killing drivers who have been caught not matching the number on their speedo to a number on a stick!
The other problem of course is that the remedy for inatention is education. That won't do at all! drivers must be punished with points and fines - it's the only way to learn 'em! No the answer is speed cameras and lots of them? What was the question again?
We do need speed limits, but they have to be credible. We need to acknowledge that the most important skill in safe driving is hazard perception, concentration and driving to the conditions and the answer is education. The usual suspects will come back with the usual drivel - drivers can't be trusted, one speeding lunatic means they're all speeding lunatics. Of course the winner in the complete utter horse s
t awards - without speed limits they'd just drive everywhere as fast as possible! Edited by Skyline33 on Friday 14th August 18:24
Edited by Skyline33 on Friday 14th August 18:26
With limits dumbed down to ridiculous levels (NSLs to 40 or 50). Limits are now not realistic and held in contempt by a large number as shown by various surveys that show limits are regularly exceeded.
I wish the OP luck with this but the "Speed kills" mantra has brainwashed too many people.
I'm one of those people who often wants to drive in excess of the posted speed limits, and in an ideal world we wouldn't need them. I'd like to think that we could just drive at whatever speed the conditions dictate, but there has to be a way of stopping those of us who have no common sense of our own from making the decision themselves. You could say that we should leave it up to traffic officers to correct inappropriate driving; unfortunately they too are human and make mistakes, have bad days, and sometimes don't always know better. I'd much rather be judged against a fixed scale in which I either did or didn't transgress, rather than by a bloke with a funny hat and dayglo jacket who can just decide whether he likes your driving or not. This is going to happen anyway, but imagine if officers had the power to make up their own speed limit for a set of conditions and decide that you had crossed it even though you were driving well within the limits of your own skill and vehicle. Much as I understand happens on the German Autobahn in derestricted sections. Personally, I'd rather have speed limit below which I know I am safe from prosecution, at least for speed alone.
Speed limits also serve the purpose of smoothing out traffic flow. If we all drive at our own chosen speed, we're always likely to be frustrated by that driver in front of us who has decided that he is happy with 30 while you would want to be doing 65. Although they are meant to act as an upper limit, many of us do use the posted speed limit as a target speed. We become less frustrated by someone holding us up who is doing the speed limit than by someone pootling along at 10-15mph under in dry, clear conditions.
I'd say there's definitely a case for variable speed limits, albeit not necessarily electronic ones. If I were in charge of roads policy, I'd limit motorways to 90 or 100MPH outside of rush hours, and bring in a blanket lowering to 70 only when it's raining. All DCs should be 70 except when it's wet, when they should be 60. Any deviations from those speed limits should be accompanied by a good reason for a lowered limit, for example 50 with "Residential area" printed underneath. I'm not an expert on roads, so I've plucked the numbers out of the air, but hopefully they will sound reasonable to most people.
Speed limits also serve the purpose of smoothing out traffic flow. If we all drive at our own chosen speed, we're always likely to be frustrated by that driver in front of us who has decided that he is happy with 30 while you would want to be doing 65. Although they are meant to act as an upper limit, many of us do use the posted speed limit as a target speed. We become less frustrated by someone holding us up who is doing the speed limit than by someone pootling along at 10-15mph under in dry, clear conditions.
I'd say there's definitely a case for variable speed limits, albeit not necessarily electronic ones. If I were in charge of roads policy, I'd limit motorways to 90 or 100MPH outside of rush hours, and bring in a blanket lowering to 70 only when it's raining. All DCs should be 70 except when it's wet, when they should be 60. Any deviations from those speed limits should be accompanied by a good reason for a lowered limit, for example 50 with "Residential area" printed underneath. I'm not an expert on roads, so I've plucked the numbers out of the air, but hopefully they will sound reasonable to most people.
blueg33 said:
Speed and the severity of an accident are really a bit of a given (physics), I think the op's point is that speed doesn't cause accidents but the way road safety has been promoted in recent years has led many people to think that it is the cause of accidents.
The frequency of accidents does increase as speed increases. It doesn't make everyone crash of course but the facts are that as average speed of traffic goes up there are more collisions. There! I've said it twice.Now the real reason speed is important is not the volume of collisions but when a collision occurs, whatever it's cause, the outcome will be worse at higher speed.
Same thing is true for the seriousness of the outcome, not every outcome is worse at high speed but generally they are.
You said yourself severity is a given, that is why the number of severe accidents is reducing, because average traffic speeds are down. This is not the only reason but it sure helps.
By the way, I have read posts in the same vein as the OP's from someone with the same name as the OP that were posted in 1994. The campaign isn't going well and I would predict will not go well.
My initial thoughts haven't changed, he's bonkers.
Edited by tapereel on Friday 14th August 20:27
tapereel said:
"The frequency of accidents does increase as speed increases. It doesn't make everyone crash of course but the facts are that as average speed of traffic goes up there are more collision. There! I've said it twice."
Now the real reason speed is important is not the volume of collision but when a collision occurs, whatever it's cause, the outcome will be worse at higher speed.
Same thing is true for the seriousness of the outcome, not every outcome is worse at high speed but generally they are.
You said yourself severity is a give, that is why the number of severe accidents is reducing, because average traffic speeds are down. This is not the only reason but it sure helps.
By the way, I have read posts in a be same vein as the OP's from someone with the same name as the OP that were posted in 1994. The campaign isn't going well and I would predict will not go well.
My initial thoughts haven't changed, he's bonkers.
The trouble with this moronic obsession with speed is that it is entirely about accident mitigation. In plain English "Let's hit people at slower speeds". If we can slow cars just a bit more etc etc.....Now the real reason speed is important is not the volume of collision but when a collision occurs, whatever it's cause, the outcome will be worse at higher speed.
Same thing is true for the seriousness of the outcome, not every outcome is worse at high speed but generally they are.
You said yourself severity is a give, that is why the number of severe accidents is reducing, because average traffic speeds are down. This is not the only reason but it sure helps.
By the way, I have read posts in a be same vein as the OP's from someone with the same name as the OP that were posted in 1994. The campaign isn't going well and I would predict will not go well.
My initial thoughts haven't changed, he's bonkers.
Shouldn't Road safety be about accident prevention or "not hitting people at all"? Of course the Luddites and cyclists will say "it's not possible, drivers are ape like creatures with sub-human intelligence". Well I've managed not to hit anyone in 20 years and I suspect many people on here can say the same.
Oh but there's a flaw - we're not allowed to educate drivers to make them more skilled, that would just encourage them to drive. Much better we advocate hitting people at slower speeds because then we can have lower speed limits which deters driving.
[quote=tapereel]
The frequency of accidents does increase as speed increases. It doesn't make everyone crash of course but the facts are that as average speed of traffic goes up there are more collisions. There! I've said it twice.
So how come Motorways are the safest roads then? given that they usuallly have cars driving on them at the highest speeds?
The frequency of accidents does increase as speed increases. It doesn't make everyone crash of course but the facts are that as average speed of traffic goes up there are more collisions. There! I've said it twice.
So how come Motorways are the safest roads then? given that they usuallly have cars driving on them at the highest speeds?
number 46 said:
tapereel said:
The frequency of accidents does increase as speed increases. It doesn't make everyone crash of course but the facts are that as average speed of traffic goes up there are more collisions. There! I've said it twice.[/quite]
So how come Motorways are the safest roads then? given that they usuallly have cars driving on them at the highest speeds?
Doh! Could it be that everyone is pointing the same way...mostly? You did ask.So how come Motorways are the safest roads then? given that they usuallly have cars driving on them at the highest speeds?
Skyline33 said:
tapereel said:
"The frequency of accidents does increase as speed increases. It doesn't make everyone crash of course but the facts are that as average speed of traffic goes up there are more collision. There! I've said it twice."
Now the real reason speed is important is not the volume of collision but when a collision occurs, whatever it's cause, the outcome will be worse at higher speed.
Same thing is true for the seriousness of the outcome, not every outcome is worse at high speed but generally they are.
You said yourself severity is a give, that is why the number of severe accidents is reducing, because average traffic speeds are down. This is not the only reason but it sure helps.
By the way, I have read posts in a be same vein as the OP's from someone with the same name as the OP that were posted in 1994. The campaign isn't going well and I would predict will not go well.
My initial thoughts haven't changed, he's bonkers.
The trouble with this moronic obsession with speed is that it is entirely about accident mitigation. In plain English "Let's hit people at slower speeds". If we can slow cars just a bit more etc etc.....Now the real reason speed is important is not the volume of collision but when a collision occurs, whatever it's cause, the outcome will be worse at higher speed.
Same thing is true for the seriousness of the outcome, not every outcome is worse at high speed but generally they are.
You said yourself severity is a give, that is why the number of severe accidents is reducing, because average traffic speeds are down. This is not the only reason but it sure helps.
By the way, I have read posts in a be same vein as the OP's from someone with the same name as the OP that were posted in 1994. The campaign isn't going well and I would predict will not go well.
My initial thoughts haven't changed, he's bonkers.
Shouldn't Road safety be about accident prevention or "not hitting people at all"? Of course the Luddites and cyclists will say "it's not possible, drivers are ape like creatures with sub-human intelligence". Well I've managed not to hit anyone in 20 years and I suspect many people on here can say the same.
Oh but there's a flaw - we're not allowed to educate drivers to make them more skilled, that would just encourage them to drive. Much better we advocate hitting people at slower speeds because then we can have lower speed limits which deters driving.
Maybe someone should do a study to see what proportion of those involved in fatal collisions have not been involved in any collision before the event that killed them or someone else. Maybe that would illustrate to morons why saying that is pretty stupid.
I was driving at very high speeds last week and didn't kill myself or anyone else but I was on a track. If I did that on the road and had a collision I would say that there would be a high risk of a death, more so than if I was travelling at a lower and lawful speed. Thankfully the track environment prevented any risk of collision or conflict with another vehicle, not so on the roads though.
Oh yes, and I've done that for quite a number of years and not had an accident...I am not sufficiently moronic to think that a single vehicle accident could not or would not occur though.
tapereel said:
It's hardly moronic. Perhaps what is moronic is the "I've not crashed in 20 years" malarky.
Maybe someone should do a study to see what proportion of those involved in fatal collisions have not been involved in any collision before the event that killed them or someone else. Maybe that would illustrate to morons why saying that is pretty stupid.
I was driving at very high speeds last week and didn't kill myself or anyone else but I was on a track. If I did that on the road and had a collision I would say that there would be a high risk of a death, more so than if I was travelling at a lower and lawful speed. Thankfully the track environment prevented any risk of collision or conflict with another vehicle, not so on the roads though.
Oh yes, and I've done that for quite a number of years and not had an accident...I am not sufficiently moronic to think that a single vehicle accident could not or would not occur though.
Yes - I've not had a crash in 20 years, why because I've become better at hazard perception and setting my speed to the conditions. How bizarre! What a strange concept, the longer you do something the better you get at it. Perhaps you think that's a moronic too? Maybe someone should do a study to see what proportion of those involved in fatal collisions have not been involved in any collision before the event that killed them or someone else. Maybe that would illustrate to morons why saying that is pretty stupid.
I was driving at very high speeds last week and didn't kill myself or anyone else but I was on a track. If I did that on the road and had a collision I would say that there would be a high risk of a death, more so than if I was travelling at a lower and lawful speed. Thankfully the track environment prevented any risk of collision or conflict with another vehicle, not so on the roads though.
Oh yes, and I've done that for quite a number of years and not had an accident...I am not sufficiently moronic to think that a single vehicle accident could not or would not occur though.
Not sure where your 2nd paragraph comes from at all.
The 3rd isn't much better but at least I can see the prejudice dripping from every word. Of course I don't think an accident could never happen to me just because it hasn't happened to me for 20 years, it's why I continue to proritise observation, hazard perception and concentration - and why have still haven't had a crash! Doh!!
Dammit said:
Relative lack of junctions, street furniture, parked vehicles, traffic coming the other way, and that fewer drivers are staring straight into their iPhone than in town.
So what you are saying is that hazard density and lack of attention is more likely to cause an accident then speed! That's revolutionary. It means reducing limits and sticking speed cameras up everywhere isn't the answer.
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!
You have good intentions but I think you're onto a loser. All past and present government is interested in is taxation, and how best to extract every last penny from the peasants, using whatever means necessary, in this current climate of driving, speeding has to be the easiest one to generate tax income, just set the speed limits artificially low across the country and watch the tax revenue pour in. It's never been about safety otherwise the government would have introduced speed limiters into cars and vans like are used in lorries. 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
Many studies carried out in the USA in the 1979s and 1980s concluded that the safest speed to drive at was that driven by 85% of motorists on the road, known as the 85th percentile, but here in the UK that has been totally disregarded, probably because the government need to raise tax revenue to pay off the ever increasing national debt (I guess that reducing spending on pet projects and giving it away to other countries is beyond their comprehension) and the council jobsworths seem to hate cars, preferring us to use non-existant bus services instead!
At some point anarchy will prevail, well always assuming there hasn't been a military coup in the meantime.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff