RE: 'Speed kills' policy unsafe: campaign
Tuesday 8th August 2006
Rural limits to be reviewedRoad safety campaign Safe Speed called the Department for Transport's guidance for setting local speed limits "flawed and deadly because it is founded on bad science and tends to de-skill driving".
'Speed kills' policy unsafe: campaign
More will die on the roads warns safety expert
Rural limits to be reviewed
The rationale was as follows:
- Basing speed limits on average traffic speeds as suggested in the new advice tends to put around half of all drivers outside the law.
- At the foundation of the new guidance is the idea that reducing speed by 1mph leads to five per cent fewer crashes. The science employed is just plain wrong and the claimed speed accident relationship does not exist.
- Reduced speed limits, where they are unnecessary, de-skill driving, and if our drivers employ less skill, more of us will die on the roads.
Founder Paul Smith said: "The new guidance is based on faulty foundations and will ultimately cause road deaths to increase. If we want safer roads we must look at the psychological factors that underlie crashes. By tending to de-skill driving these proposals will make road safety worse.
"Department for Transport is clearly blinded by its own 'speed kills' propaganda and is not fit for purpose. It does not understand the process of safe driving and as such is not competent to devise road safety policy."
Links
Discussion
Doesn't using average speeds as a guide for the limit mean (no pun intended) that eventually we will end up with speeds around 0mph?
That was the whole reason 85th percentile was used, and now they are using illogical reasoning to somehow achieve something.
WHO is in charge? WHERE are the independent bodies calling these ideas complete bollarks?
It's madness!
Dave
That was the whole reason 85th percentile was used, and now they are using illogical reasoning to somehow achieve something.
WHO is in charge? WHERE are the independent bodies calling these ideas complete bollarks?
It's madness!
Dave
As an aside, i have it on very good authority that the A379 between Kenton and Newton Abbot in Devon which consists of 40mph, 30mph and 20mph 
with NO NSL at all is going to be having every limit reviewed with a serious view to increasing the limit or removing them in the near future.
As people have been getting frustrated and overtaking the people sticking rigidly at 30 and causing accidents along the road, due to the unecessary low speed limits, ie a half mile straight (Cofton) which is half 30 limit and half 40 limit, absolutely ridiculous.
A bit of common sense from Devon County Council at last
with NO NSL at all is going to be having every limit reviewed with a serious view to increasing the limit or removing them in the near future. As people have been getting frustrated and overtaking the people sticking rigidly at 30 and causing accidents along the road, due to the unecessary low speed limits, ie a half mile straight (Cofton) which is half 30 limit and half 40 limit, absolutely ridiculous.
A bit of common sense from Devon County Council at last
Mr Whippy said:
Doesn't using average speeds as a guide for the limit mean (no pun intended) that eventually we will end up with speeds around 0mph?
0mph, "10%+2" = 2mph, 2mph enforcement threshold = Speed camera revenue to die for!
(Oh, and the complete collapse of every industry reliant on travel, but let's brush that one under the carpet.)
From what I gather from SafeSpeed's research, the 85th percentile was based on the assumption that the average driver was skilled and intelligent to set a suitable speed for the car and/or road. I'm sure that 'average' speed is more an attempt at pleasing the 44mph crowd, and the car-haters, than actually making a dent on road safety. Unfortunately, I'm pretty sure they make up a bigger proportion of the voting population than us speed-addicted, overtake-obsessed hooligans. Or maybe they've been highlighted as a group rocking on the fence between Labour and another party.
Of course, the more they "de-skill" driving, the more the 85th percentile (or indeed, any speed calculated from a representative sample of drivers) will be an irrelevant measure. I'm fairly sure that the people who came up with this scheme would like nothing more than to put a sheet of paper in SafeSpeed's face showing that drivers were completely incapable of choosing their own speed.
I always wonder what would happen if speed limits were abolished entirely, and replaced with (stiffer and more regularly applied) penalties for driving without due care and attention.
Timberwolf said:
I always wonder what would happen if speed limits were abolished entirely, and replaced with (stiffer and more regularly applied) penalties for driving without due care and attention.
That would ultimately be all that is needed, because if your speed is excessive for the conditions anyway (including under the "old" limit) then dwdc(at) would cover all the bases wrt to speed anyway.
But that would cost money and empower people with decision making, something our government seems to be totally against
Dave
We had a very good framework which gave guidance on which limit to apply on which road.
It was roads circular 1/93, the DfT havetaken it off line but you can still see the content here in Appendix A page 8 of the linked document.
However the new speed kills wernakers have meant that many roads are limited one or two steps below what the old 1/93 suggested.
The new sugestion is here
A very telling para in that earlier document is a follows,
THE USE OF SPEED LIMITS
5. The main purpose of specific speed limits is to provide for situations where it is appropriate for drivers to adopt a speed which is lower than the national speed limit. That limit does not imply that it is a safe speed under all conditions and drivers should adopt still lower speeds if conditions warrant. The establishment of speed limits is also a method through which legal sanctions can be brought to bear on those who drive markedly faster than is reasonable on that road. Specific speed limits cannot, on their own, be expected to reduce vehicle speed if they are set at a level substantially below that at which drivers would choose to drive in the absence of a limit.
and
6.6 The most important factor when setting a limit is what the road looks like to the road user. This is influenced by the road geometry (road width, sightlines, bends, crossings etc.) and the environment through which the road passes (rural, residential, shop frontages, schools etc.) Road users will expect lower limits where they can see that there are more potential risks. However, different road user groups perceive risks differently. In particular, motor vehicle drivers do not have the same perception of the hazards of speed as do vulnerable road users and
are most affected by the road geometry when determining a sensible speed. Sometimes the “messages” given by the surrounding environment and the road geometry can be contradictory. There is little point in establishing a limit, however desirable from an environmental or safety point of view, if it is not going to have any effect on actual vehicle speed. In Annex A a description is given of the features which can be expected at well sited limits of different level.
It was roads circular 1/93, the DfT havetaken it off line but you can still see the content here in Appendix A page 8 of the linked document.
However the new speed kills wernakers have meant that many roads are limited one or two steps below what the old 1/93 suggested.
The new sugestion is here
A very telling para in that earlier document is a follows,
THE USE OF SPEED LIMITS
5. The main purpose of specific speed limits is to provide for situations where it is appropriate for drivers to adopt a speed which is lower than the national speed limit. That limit does not imply that it is a safe speed under all conditions and drivers should adopt still lower speeds if conditions warrant. The establishment of speed limits is also a method through which legal sanctions can be brought to bear on those who drive markedly faster than is reasonable on that road. Specific speed limits cannot, on their own, be expected to reduce vehicle speed if they are set at a level substantially below that at which drivers would choose to drive in the absence of a limit.
and
6.6 The most important factor when setting a limit is what the road looks like to the road user. This is influenced by the road geometry (road width, sightlines, bends, crossings etc.) and the environment through which the road passes (rural, residential, shop frontages, schools etc.) Road users will expect lower limits where they can see that there are more potential risks. However, different road user groups perceive risks differently. In particular, motor vehicle drivers do not have the same perception of the hazards of speed as do vulnerable road users and
are most affected by the road geometry when determining a sensible speed. Sometimes the “messages” given by the surrounding environment and the road geometry can be contradictory. There is little point in establishing a limit, however desirable from an environmental or safety point of view, if it is not going to have any effect on actual vehicle speed. In Annex A a description is given of the features which can be expected at well sited limits of different level.
Bah who cares.
They won't enforce it with people anyway. Anymore vans and scamerati out and about and their profits will tumble if they are used for wide coverage even on quiet roads (ie, cost effective to monitor a quiet road??)
So they'll use fixed camera's, which can be seen, poor ability for siting in the sticks with no power source etc. Easy to vandalise etc.
Just not going to happen where it matters anyway.
Limit is 60mph now but I go 70mph+ where it's safe already, so I'm breaking the law now as it is. If it's lowered to 50 or 40mph I'll still be breaking the law so who cares? I'll just be breaking it along with even more people than ever
Dave
They won't enforce it with people anyway. Anymore vans and scamerati out and about and their profits will tumble if they are used for wide coverage even on quiet roads (ie, cost effective to monitor a quiet road??)
So they'll use fixed camera's, which can be seen, poor ability for siting in the sticks with no power source etc. Easy to vandalise etc.
Just not going to happen where it matters anyway.
Limit is 60mph now but I go 70mph+ where it's safe already, so I'm breaking the law now as it is. If it's lowered to 50 or 40mph I'll still be breaking the law so who cares? I'll just be breaking it along with even more people than ever
Dave
Some nice coverage in todays Evening Standard [London] ....
www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/articles/PA_NEWA10967031155019673A0000?source=PA%20Feed
K
www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/articles/PA_NEWA10967031155019673A0000?source=PA%20Feed
K
Write to the newspapers - letters columns. Keep it sensible, nothing aggressive. State your own views about revenue generation, safety, and "picking on the motorist". Weight of letters can have a marked impact on political will.
Do it now
Don't wait for others
Don't think that YOU can't make a difference.
When you have done that, write a simila letter to your MP.
I'm doing mine tonight!
Do it now
Don't wait for others
Don't think that YOU can't make a difference.
When you have done that, write a simila letter to your MP.
I'm doing mine tonight!
I agree totally with Timberwolf about removing all speed limits, but alternatively enforcing strictly and forcefully driving without due care and attention, and such related laws. There should perhaps be posted recommended speeds.
Apart from the loss in speeding fine revenue, this also supposes that all drivers are responsible, but reality is that fewer and fewer people have any sense of responsibility for anything, probably because they have given up caring, due to the poor examples set by peers and superiors (meant in sense of rank rather than ability). Lets face it, there should be absolutely no need for locks on doors, but for a minority of theiving ba**ards!, and so we all are forced to live our lives by restrictive rules.
I say the punishment for people who do not show any respect for other people or their property (maliceously cause injury or steel etc), should be given a parashute, and forced to jump out somewhere over Africa or Siberia. That`ll focus their tiny minds.....I`m not a Nazi really, but the freedoms our forfathers died for in their thousands, are gradually being erroded due to too much freedom given to too many irresponsible people.
Thats todays rant out of the way! Do I feel any better for it...a bit. Will anything change..no, so why bother (about anything), and that about says it all....
Apart from the loss in speeding fine revenue, this also supposes that all drivers are responsible, but reality is that fewer and fewer people have any sense of responsibility for anything, probably because they have given up caring, due to the poor examples set by peers and superiors (meant in sense of rank rather than ability). Lets face it, there should be absolutely no need for locks on doors, but for a minority of theiving ba**ards!, and so we all are forced to live our lives by restrictive rules.
I say the punishment for people who do not show any respect for other people or their property (maliceously cause injury or steel etc), should be given a parashute, and forced to jump out somewhere over Africa or Siberia. That`ll focus their tiny minds.....I`m not a Nazi really, but the freedoms our forfathers died for in their thousands, are gradually being erroded due to too much freedom given to too many irresponsible people.
Thats todays rant out of the way! Do I feel any better for it...a bit. Will anything change..no, so why bother (about anything), and that about says it all....
deltafox said:
Who gives a stuff what the speed limits are? Who actually takes f@ck all notice of what these pricks say? Theyre no indicator of safe driving practices anyway.
Ignore them and continue to drive safely above the "limits"!
Ignore them and continue to drive safely above the "limits"!
Know where you are coming from, but from experience in the 70s when the blanket 50 limit was in place it altered how vulnerable one was to detection.
Remember this was before the days of the 50,60,70 malarkey that we have to put up with today, NSL was 70, and actually providing you were clearly sensible about things, NSL still sort of meant NSL.
and N didn't stand for National say no more. Plus there was no, or very little, electronic enforcement, and what there was had a proper trained class 1 involved at the time.
The change it made though from my perspective was that with a 70 limit, someone could be seen to be getting a wiggle on, but that prior opinion HAD to be reinforced by a measurement. Anyone getting a similar wiggle on with a blanket 50 clearly was above the limit and it seemed to me the balance of things somehow changed.
just my 2p.
The crux of the issue seems to me to be to be a change in policy from a speed limit being just that - the maximum legally allowable speed - to being 'the speed at which we would like you to drive'. Big difference, one giving the motorist responsibility and accountability, the other seeming to imply some guarantee of safety.
I wish the government would stop wasting money commissioning this sort of rubbish and get back to the route cause of accidents.
In the old days if there were a lot of accidents in one area this was assumed to be because there was a bad road layout and then it would be changed.
Simply shoving a load of speed cameras all over the place makes it worse, now you have an accident black spot with most of the drivers looking at their dashboards rather than where they are going and the rest doing emergancy stops every time they see a lamp post hiding behind a tree.
Personally I can't understand how this is supposed to help.
I wish the government would just admit they are wrong rather than continuing this farce, most of us know what a bunch of usless, lying, self obsessed tw*ts they are anyway.
I saw the chief idiot on the tv talking about how he knew he knows he is right even even when public opinion and his colegues disagree, thats how much trouble we are in these days!
In the old days if there were a lot of accidents in one area this was assumed to be because there was a bad road layout and then it would be changed.
Simply shoving a load of speed cameras all over the place makes it worse, now you have an accident black spot with most of the drivers looking at their dashboards rather than where they are going and the rest doing emergancy stops every time they see a lamp post hiding behind a tree.
Personally I can't understand how this is supposed to help.
I wish the government would just admit they are wrong rather than continuing this farce, most of us know what a bunch of usless, lying, self obsessed tw*ts they are anyway.
I saw the chief idiot on the tv talking about how he knew he knows he is right even even when public opinion and his colegues disagree, thats how much trouble we are in these days!
In my experience there are a lot of people who drive at about 40mph on country roads regardless of the speed limit (be it 60, 50, 40 or 30). These people will drag the "average speed" on any given stretch of road down (or up if limit is 30!!) regardless of whether it is safe or reasonable to be going faster.
Furtermore, in may areas the current speed limits are not being enforced along with dangerous driving, use of mobile phones etc.
In my area, the Local Authroity wanted to put a blanket 20mph speed limit on country lanes (Quite Lanes) until they realised that 1. Hardly anyone used the roads, 2. Nobody has been hurt on these roads, 3. Nobody was going to police these roads, 4. The signage required would be costly and unsightly.....The imposition of speed limits other than NSL has other implications and needs to be properly thought through.
Furtermore, in may areas the current speed limits are not being enforced along with dangerous driving, use of mobile phones etc.
In my area, the Local Authroity wanted to put a blanket 20mph speed limit on country lanes (Quite Lanes) until they realised that 1. Hardly anyone used the roads, 2. Nobody has been hurt on these roads, 3. Nobody was going to police these roads, 4. The signage required would be costly and unsightly.....The imposition of speed limits other than NSL has other implications and needs to be properly thought through.
Edited by x332race on Tuesday 8th August 13:19
eliminator said:
Write to the newspapers - letters columns. Keep it sensible, nothing aggressive. State your own views about revenue generation, safety, and "picking on the motorist". Weight of letters can have a marked impact on political will.
Do it now
Don't wait for others
Don't think that YOU can't make a difference.
When you have done that, write a simila letter to your MP.
I'm doing mine tonight!
Do it now
Don't wait for others
Don't think that YOU can't make a difference.
When you have done that, write a simila letter to your MP.
I'm doing mine tonight!
Nicely said, Eliminator.
I would add, GO ON THE OFFENSIVE. We've been defensive about scameras for too long, and it's got us nowhere.
Current policy KILLS PEOPLE. In all other countries, as cars have progressed, fatalities and serious injuries have gone down. In the UK, where we now have the majority of drivers with points on their licences, mega ££'s being 'earned' by scameras, almost no traffic police and rapidly worsening driving habits, fatalities and serious injuries have remained pretty constant in spite of massive improvements in both road and vehicle safety. I saw one set of figures that implied that 1200 people a year are dying in excess what we would have had in our country had our figures reduced at the same rate as those in the rest of Europe. That's 24 sets of 7/7 a year. Not done by terrorists, but by jobsworths who consider themselves respectable. Time to go on the offensive.
Note, Montana was forced by federal law to introduce a blanket limit. Their fatality rate INCREASED.
Paul Smith (SafeSpeed)is onto something here, at last. I love driving, I'm passionate about it, and to be honest I'm a fast driver. I learned to drive a lot in the Devon lanes, single carriage ways where meeting someone coming the other way means stopping fast. I notice that one thing I'm constantly doing is adjusting my speed for the road, for the visibility and the road surface. This is a skill that's being lost.
Another skill that's being lost is the assessment of other vehicle speeds. Once upon a time, many goods vehicles travelled VERY slowly, and some people drove (legally) at speeds in excess of 100mph. When pulling out of a junction, or thinking about overtaking (another lost art?), it was important not only to see how far away any vehicles were, but also how fast they were travelling. Now, most of our goods vehicles travel at pretty much the same speed as the cars, and no-one bothers.
As driving becomes 'safer', or rather, more boring, there is less perceived need to pay attention to what's going on. Which, surely, is dangerous, isn't it?
Another place to consider going on the offensive is Advertising Standards. Is it not the case that adverts need to be 'decent, legal, honest and truthful', or somesuch? So how about, every time we see an advert that says, 'Speed Kills', we complain? Isn't there a current one about dropping one mph and saving a percentage of children, or something? (Don't watch much telly, and avoid adverts like the plague....) Are there FACTS behind these assertions? If not, let's COMPLAIN.
Too many people bleive the 'speed kills' myth..... And people are dying from it. Far more than from terrorism....
eliminator said:
Write to the newspapers - letters columns. Keep it sensible, nothing aggressive. State your own views about revenue generation, safety, and "picking on the motorist". Weight of letters can have a marked impact on political will.
Do it now
Don't wait for others
Don't think that YOU can't make a difference.
When you have done that, write a simila letter to your MP.
I'm doing mine tonight!
Do it now
Don't wait for others
Don't think that YOU can't make a difference.
When you have done that, write a simila letter to your MP.
I'm doing mine tonight!
Well said eliminator , and I am motivated and more than happy to do this. I get more and more frustrated by the approach of the authorities who seem to make decisions based on the advise of accountants and not experts in the field like Paul Smith, the AA and ABD. (To quote Oscar Wilde: the authorities (accountants!) know the Price of Everything and the Value of Nothing).
However it would be useful for the more eloquent of you out their to provide a rough template of a letter making the key points which we can 'personalise' and send to our MP's etc (where in addition to my local MP would you suggest? - local newspaper??) In sending a letter I want it to be correct, informed and punchy and from my reading of this forum there are folk who could do this.
Any takers? Paul perhaps?
Nicaf
Edited by nicaf on Tuesday 8th August 13:57
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff