RE: More lies over scameras revealed
Discussion
Not trying to be controversial but some may see it that way ... most drivers, including those lacking confidence, set a safe enough speed for any road they drive on by taking their cues from the totality of driving conditions. This includes their own competence and level of self-confidence, their car, the road conditions, traffic conditions, weather etc. The very small fraction of drivers who do not or cannot do this will not obey speed limits anyway, they are reckless with their own safety and will not be unduly concerned for other road users of any kind.
Speed limits are mostly not needed. They are helpful in a few situations when accompanied by a hazard symbol of some kind to warn even observant drivers of a hidden hazard and give them a cue as to an appropriate approach speed. They are also useful to allow the police a means to remove that small percentage of nutters from the road. That's about it.
Speed limits are mostly not needed. They are helpful in a few situations when accompanied by a hazard symbol of some kind to warn even observant drivers of a hidden hazard and give them a cue as to an appropriate approach speed. They are also useful to allow the police a means to remove that small percentage of nutters from the road. That's about it.
I haven't got any data to back this up, but subjectively it seems to me that drivers are much less likely to drive at less than the speed limit in built up areas than they used to be. Quite often if I'm doing 25 in a 30 limit I get a car behind me right on my bumper trying to will me out of the way. Possibly not the smartest move, if I'm going that slowly because I might need to stop suddenly. It seems to me that drivers around me use the prevailing speed limit as a target, maybe 5-10 mph over it if they feel brave but certainly not any slower. I'd like to think the driver behind me was wondering why I was going so slowly and perhaps looking for the hazard I've seen that he hasn't. But it seems to me that drivers generally are setting their 'target speed' from those little round signs and are reluctant to go any slower unless there is something in front physically obstructing them. Am I the only one getting this?
GreenV8S said:
I haven't got any data to back this up, but subjectively it seems to me that drivers are much less likely to drive at less than the speed limit in built up areas than they used to be. Quite often if I'm doing 25 in a 30 limit I get a car behind me right on my bumper trying to will me out of the way. Possibly not the smartest move, if I'm going that slowly because I might need to stop suddenly. It seems to me that drivers around me use the prevailing speed limit as a target, maybe 5-10 mph over it if they feel brave but certainly not any slower. I'd like to think the driver behind me was wondering why I was going so slowly and perhaps looking for the hazard I've seen that he hasn't. But it seems to me that drivers generally are setting their 'target speed' from those little round signs and are reluctant to go any slower unless there is something in front physically obstructing them. Am I the only one getting this?
Oh yes. Everywhere. We've promoted speed limits WAY beyond their level of competence and millions of drivers now believe that if they are not exceeding the speed limit their speed is safe.
But 30mph is a deadly speed. We're frequently told that 50% of pedestrians (20% of child pedestrians) die in 30mph impacts.
Fortunately in the real world we're not hitting them at 30mph in any great numbers because only 1.9% of pedestrians injured in collisions with vehicles in 2004 died.
So perhaps we should stick to 30mph and kill 50%? That would raise the death toll from 671 to over 17,000.
And those figures relate to ALL speed limits not just 30mph.
apache said:
I've rarely seen the point made so well.
The point being that speed limits shouldn't always be enforced?
So what about down a wide clear residential street at 4 in the morning when there is clearly no-one about? OK to 'speed' then? Thing is the local residents don't want you to. Hence the speed limit - its not just there for safety.
The point is still against an 'arbitrary limit' and without one (thats properly enforced) our roads would be utter chaos.
Sometimes the suggestion comes up that speed limits are imposed for reasons other than safety. Well fair enough, but if you're trying to improve traffic flow then address things that impede traffic flow; if you're trying to limit noise then introduce a noise limit and enforce that.
Speed limits don't seem to be a very effective way of controlling noise since I can make far more noise at a legal 30 mph in my TVR than your average production car driven at an illegal 40. Likewise if you're serious about managing traffic flow then address the shock waves and rolling roadblocks by stopping tail gating, lane hogging etc.
In any case, punishments that might be considered reasonable for causing a danger through inappropriate speed are IMO wholly disproportionate if the speed limit is only there to reduce the traffic noise or improve traffic flow. What next, three points on your license if you're seen being too cautious pulling out of a junction?
If you're trying to make the roads safe then penalise things that make them unsafe. If you want to make roads quiet then penalise things that make them noisy. It's not exactly rocket science is it? Speed limits just don't address the problems they are claimed to address, and enforcing them strictly and harshly just doesn't make sense.
Speed limits don't seem to be a very effective way of controlling noise since I can make far more noise at a legal 30 mph in my TVR than your average production car driven at an illegal 40. Likewise if you're serious about managing traffic flow then address the shock waves and rolling roadblocks by stopping tail gating, lane hogging etc.
In any case, punishments that might be considered reasonable for causing a danger through inappropriate speed are IMO wholly disproportionate if the speed limit is only there to reduce the traffic noise or improve traffic flow. What next, three points on your license if you're seen being too cautious pulling out of a junction?
If you're trying to make the roads safe then penalise things that make them unsafe. If you want to make roads quiet then penalise things that make them noisy. It's not exactly rocket science is it? Speed limits just don't address the problems they are claimed to address, and enforcing them strictly and harshly just doesn't make sense.
spnracing said:It's not their road though, any more than the collection of buildings is our village as seen on signs beside roads entering everybody's village. Living somewhere gives no rights to residents over speed limits, council tax levels or anything much else, which is just as well. If noise is a concern, it wouldn't be for the average car which is nearly silent due to EU regulations ... a typical PH car might be another story though
So what about down a wide clear residential street at 4 in the morning when there is clearly no-one about? OK to 'speed' then? Thing is the local residents don't want you to. Hence the speed limit - its not just there for safety
spnracing said:There are no arbitrary limits outside built-up areas on the Isle of Man and telephone conversations with a Sgt Kinrade over there, followed by a look over accident stats for three years faxed over by him, show that having no arbitrary limit does not lead to chaos.
The point is still against an 'arbitrary limit' and without one (thats properly enforced) our roads would be utter chaos.
They do have some autonomy over there but the DfT is trying very hard to get limits imposed as our ministers seriously don't like continuing real-time evidence that no limits and high speeds can be safe. Manx police were against the introduction of speed limits outside built-up areas at the time of my correspondence. They showed a sensible and rational attitude to road safety which had a refreshing absence of spin and bull5h1t generally
spnracing said:
The point is still against an 'arbitrary limit' and without one (thats properly enforced) our roads would be utter chaos.
I really fail to understand the logic behind this.
Isle of Man, Germany, Northern Territories Australia, Namibia and a few other places are all counter-examples.
I could cite Italy, which has an official speed limit, but *no* *one*, not even the nuns, keeps to it, apparently.
Speed limits also allow pedestrians to get where they are going without being terrified by someone showing fast he/she can drive 'safely'. They allow people to pull out of driveways without having to analyse whether the car approaching from 1/2 mile away could be doing 90. They are there for all kinds of reasons and for the vast majority of us who live in British towns and surburbia arguing against them is utterly futile. I believe they have the massive support of the general public and I don't recall any political of any kind suggesting they should be removed altogether - ever?
You cannot compare Namibia and the non-built up areas of the Isle of Man to inner M25 London.
You cannot compare Namibia and the non-built up areas of the Isle of Man to inner M25 London.
spnracing said:
Speed limits also allow pedestrians to get where they are going without being terrified by someone showing fast he/she can drive 'safely'. They allow people to pull out of driveways without having to analyse whether the car approaching from 1/2 mile away could be doing 90. They are there for all kinds of reasons
I agree absolutely with all those reasons for choosing an appropriate speed. The speed limit establishes general expectations for traffic speed in that area, and people will naturally rely on this when doing things that might bring them into conflict with the traffic. If you're pulling out of a blind exit in town you'd be on the lookout for cars within 'striking distance' at 30 mph; in an NSL area you'd need to be looking out for cars much further away.
Safety is best achieved by cooperation between everyone involved. As a driver we have to consider what others will be expecting of us, and this includes speed as well as many other things.
I think this is obvious and sensible, and I agree that speed limits serve a useful purpose in establishing a general expectation for speed in the area. But I still strongly disagree that this should be used to determine exactly how fast you drive at a given moment, and to strictly and rigorously enforce a speed limit is not only unproductive, it is counterproductive.
I do agree that exceeding a speed limit by a significant amount can be very dangerous in many circumstances, the point is that it depends on the circumstances not just on a number on a sign.
but isnt the point being that on the island there IS a speed limit in the built up areas, but away from there, no speed limits...
its not 'oh look they have no speed limit in nambia, so best not to have one in inner london'
wouldnt the analogy be more like the Yorkshrie dales.. through the built up areas have speed limits, but out in the dales away from the villages, do away with the speed limits, on many of them it wouldnt make any difference since its dangerous enough at 20 down a single track lane with drystone either side, let alone trying to attain NSL
its not 'oh look they have no speed limit in nambia, so best not to have one in inner london'
wouldnt the analogy be more like the Yorkshrie dales.. through the built up areas have speed limits, but out in the dales away from the villages, do away with the speed limits, on many of them it wouldnt make any difference since its dangerous enough at 20 down a single track lane with drystone either side, let alone trying to attain NSL
spnracing said:I see what you're saying but no, they don't.A bit of devil's advocacy now but not much. Speed limits don't do that because there are people who ignore them. So you get folk believing that the car ahead is doing 30 when it's not. Without the limit they'd be cautious and judge a vehicle speed using their brain. The 'no limits' on the Isle of Man isn't motorway stuff is it? There are small connurbations, junctions, farm houses, isolated buildings, other road users, the works.
Speed limits also allow pedestrians to get where they are going without being terrified by someone showing fast he/she can drive 'safely'. They allow people to pull out of driveways without having to analyse whether the car approaching from 1/2 mile away could be doing 90.
Speed limits are largely pointless because people who obey don't need them, and people who don't obey them aren't affected anyway. They have a couple of uses as mentioned earlier, such as alongside a warning of a hidden hazard ahead to help drivers set an appropriate speed for in advance, and to allow the police to get idiots off the road. They were never intended and should never be used to persecute people for driving at a few mph over the arbitrary number on a stick. That's just stupid and detrimental to safety as we've seen.
turbobloke said:
Speed limits also allow pedestrians to get where they are going without being terrified by someone showing fast he/she can drive 'safely'. They allow people to pull out of driveways without having to analyse whether the car approaching from 1/2 mile away could be doing 90.
I see what you're saying but no, they don't.A bit of devil's advocacy now but not much. Speed limits don't do that because there are people who ignore them. So you get folk believing that the car ahead is doing 30 when it's not. Without the limit they'd be cautious and judge a vehicle speed using their brain. The 'no limits' on the Isle of Man isn't motorway stuff is it? There are small connurbations, junctions, farm houses, isolated buildings, other road users, the works.
Speed limits are largely pointless because people who obey don't need them, and people who don't obey them aren't affected anyway. They have a couple of uses as mentioned earlier, such as alongside a warning of a hidden hazard ahead to help drivers set an appropriate speed for in advance, and to allow the police to get idiots off the road. They were never intended and should never be used to persecute people for driving at a few mph over the arbitrary number on a stick. That's just stupid and detrimental to safety as we've seen.
I agree with what you've said, you have to have limits as an easy means to prosecute the idiots, unfortunately it now appears that we are mostly idiots. I've not had the use of a speedo in may Tiv for a couple of days and it's made no difference to the way I drive but it's scarey when you approach a scam. A speedo is good for estimating arrival times etc but has no real use in preventing accidents, you shouldn't need one to tell you you're driving safely.
JoolzB said:Maybe some folk have been dumbed down by the 'speed kills' claptrap but we still have the safest roads in the world so it could be worse. Not much of a recommendation I know but there it is.
it now appears that we are mostly idiots
JoolzB said:
A speedo is good for estimating arrival times etc but has no real use in preventing accidents, you shouldn't need one to tell you you're driving safely.
turbobloke said:
Speed limits also allow pedestrians to get where they are going without being terrified by someone showing fast he/she can drive 'safely'. They allow people to pull out of driveways without having to analyse whether the car approaching from 1/2 mile away could be doing 90.
I see what you're saying but no, they don't.A bit of devil's advocacy now but not much. Speed limits don't do that because there are people who ignore them. So you get folk believing that the car ahead is doing 30 when it's not. Without the limit they'd be cautious and judge a vehicle speed using their brain.
Rules should be present only where people (as individuals or as a society) could be put at (unreasonable) risk or deprived; anything more is pointless bureaucracy.
Hence I believe the 30 limit is appropriate for uncontrolled pedestrian areas as it’s a logical transition point for where the burden of responsibility should be placed. Drunks, children (and many drivers) will better judge a car’s ‘time of arrival’ if it’s closing speed is 20 instead of 40 or more (I know what you are thinking, but you can’t judge others by your standards; you may be gifted at these things, especially if you’re a PHer
). Of course, this rule need not apply on roads where pedestrians or junctions are not expected (e.g. motorways, dual carriageways). However, limits on carriageways with street furniture may be appropriate where drivers are expected to stop within time to give way, such as junctions or crossroads (where flyovers or underpasses are not practical), among other hazards.
I believe there is a place for speed enforcement, but there’s certainly no benefit of blanket, near zero tolerance enforcement of a rule which applies only to the lowest common denominator who really shouldn’t have even been allowed to take the driving test in the first place; unless of course there’s money to be made!
‘Speeding’ in urban areas in the small hours (ignoring effects noise pollution) doesn’t seem unreasonable, more so if it’s known to all road users that the limit isn’t in force. However, the advent of 24 hour drunkards may justify the end of that practice.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff