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

[cmaguire]

We're at a stage now where an about turn on the State's attitude to speed is highly unlikely, and if you drive regularly in Europe much the same attitude is prevelant where before it was not. In the last three years I've seen a massive increase in camera use in France for example.
I'd be pleased if they'd just bring the 70 limit up to 80 in line with most of Europe and police it as in Europe. If it were ever to happen I expect the reality is that any unofficial 'tolerances' currently existing here would vanish and the practical increase would amount to nearer 5mph than 10.
If you fly around at three figure speeds it hardly matters anyway, as that'll never be a legal option.

[anthonym]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

You think this is a little weird.
You say you are not clear what I am advocating, but go on to offer me guidance if I were advocating whatever it is you think I might be... advocating.
And you assume something about a paper you have linked to. Enter "speed kills" into google and in .37 secs there are 11.5 million hits.

My opening post says what I have to say to you.

I refer you there - and perhaps brake.org .

I suppose I could ask you what you would do about the issue of increasing deaths on the roads, aside from what appears to be nothing, but I won't.

Anthony

[Dammit]

i.e. you are going to continue to say nothing, other than "look at me! ME ME ME!"?

[Dammit]

You could buy a mirror, rather than posting nonsense?

[tapereel]

anthonym said:

Dammit said:

No problem, here you go: http://www.abd.org.uk

that is not evidence, that is a link to their web site.

there is no evidence on there.

[robinessex]

Pete317 said:

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?

I believe in the USA an experiment was tried where speedos were blanked out. The majority drove SLOWER.

[robinessex]

Dammit said:

robinessex said:

Ok. Firstly, there is an organisation doing it's best for the motorist, it's called ABD.

http://www.abd.org.uk/
http://www.abd.org.uk/topics/speed_limits.htm
http://www.abd.org.uk/topics/speed_cameras.htm
http://www.abd.org.uk/topics/road_safety.htm

ALL PH'ers should belong to it. They have published numerous papers re speed limits, how to determine them, their implementation, inappropriate levels etc. So Mr OP, if you are really keen to 'do something', join up, and I'm sure they will be delighted with your offers of assistance.

In the same way that UKIP are doing their best for Britain.

The ABD are, to a man, thick as a prison door with the ethics of Lord Janner.

Can you please inform us of your own efforts in the past 5yrs to get a better deal for motorist then? And on your way out, please shut the door quietly. Thank you.

[robinessex]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

So why don't you offer them your expertise to improve their website, which would be a benefit to all motorists

[Skyline33]

Dammit said:

In the same way that UKIP are doing their best for Britain.

The ABD are, to a man, thick as a prison door with the ethics of Lord Janner.

Thats an argument clincher right there. Lock the thread please we've sorted road safety on to Middle Eastern politics.

[flemke]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

You could look at the "Montana Paradox" as well.

[robinessex]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Malcolm Haymer, the guy who basicaly runs ABD, would, I'm sure, appreciate any assistance you can give him. Malcolm is a highways engineer.

[Pete317]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

As they had done since the 1970's

However, the latest (2014) figures indicate a somewhat worrying change:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa...

[anthonym]

robinessex said:

I believe in the USA an experiment was tried where speedos were blanked out. The majority drove SLOWER.

I have (previously) spent hours searching for that paper. Clues welcome.
I suspect it may be part of a larger project as it is not apparent on its own.

edit: I believe it was a Texas based paper

Edited by anthonym on Saturday 15th August 17:37

[Skyline33]

tapereel said:

What evidence do you have that any kind of drivers stick to the limit because they think it is what speed they can and should drive at? I don't know anyone who does that nor have I seen any sort of study or evidence that anyone does.

Seemslike you want evidence of any view contrary to yours but won't evidence the justification for your views.

Drivers driving at the "speed on the stick" ... complete bollix IMHO.

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. 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.

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?

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? Shouldn't we question speed limits set for social reasons (to 'encourage modal shift) and ask whether they actually are detrimental to road safety?
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. Far better to educate people to improve hazard perception, concentration and anticipation.

[anthonym]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

you sure about that?

[vonhosen]

Skyline33 said:

vonhosen said:

Free flowing conditions that are already subject to a speed limit!

I'm not saying the 85th percentile doesn't exist or isn't a method that was used to determine speed limits. I'm saying it doesn't equate with what you claimed it represented. That is it does not tell you what the maximum safe speed is in optimal conditions. So please provide a link that says its says what you say it does.

Not everybody travelling at a speed above the 85th percentile will be doing so dangerously, ergo the 85th percentile is not the maximum safe speed.

You appear to be preaching about something you don't understand.

So which is it now?

Are you saying that everybody who travelled 'at' the speed limit which was set using the 85th percentile was driving unsafe (after all it's rounded up & they are exceeding it)?
OR
Are you saying that everybody who exceeded that limit in optimal conditions was driving unsafe?


Is the 85th percentile the maximum safe speed in optimum conditions?
OR
Is it the speed limit it's rounded up to the maximum safe speed in optimum conditions?


I'll give you a clue
Neither are true/correct.

Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 15th August 11:04

Which percentile would you prefer 90th? 95th? You are engaged in an argument of pointless pedantry which has no bearing or value on using the 85th percentile the best way to set speed limits.

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.

[anthonym]

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 wrong.

[vonhosen]

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 wrong

Of course he is.

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).

[Skyline33]

tapereel said:

What evidence do you have that any kind of drivers stick to the limit because they think it is what speed they can and should drive at? I don't know anyone who does that nor have I seen any sort of study or evidence that anyone does.

Seemslike you want evidence of any view contrary to yours but won't evidence the justification for your views.

Drivers driving at the "speed on the stick" ... complete bollix IMHO.

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. 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.

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?

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? Shouldn't we question speed limits set for social reasons (to 'encourage modal shift) and ask whether they actually are detrimental to road safety?
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. Far better to educate people to improve hazard perception, concentration and anticipation.

[vonhosen]

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.

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.

Lower impact speeds do mean less damage, that's basic physics. We live in an imperfect world, accidents are going to happen, mitigating the damage of them is important in addition to trying to limit their incidence.

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?

Of course we could make roads safer by focusing on accident prevention or not hitting people at all. We do apply it to driving, but again we are not living in Utopia so we are going to still have collisions occurring. The question is what measures can we 'realistically' introduce to help prevent collisions?

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? Shouldn't we question speed limits set for social reasons (to 'encourage modal shift) and ask whether they actually are detrimental to road safety?

Private companies run speed awareness courses (AA etc.)
I don't see a problem with speed limits being set with consideration of other criteria in addition to road safety.

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. Far better to educate people to improve hazard perception, concentration and anticipation.

There is a role for enforcement to deal with any who break the rules.
Again what are your 'realistic' proposals for education?

Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 15th August 19:10