How much respect do you have for speed limits?

[Mave]

Read what you originally said, reduction in speed will have minimal if any impact on road safety for the squashy road users. Which is clearly untrue because being hit at a lower speed is less likely to result in death

[Pan Pan]

Mave said:

Read what you originally said, reduction in speed will have minimal if any impact on road safety for the squashy road users. Which is clearly untrue because being hit at a lower speed is less likely to result in death

I ask again, how do you know you would survive being hit by a vehicle doing 20 mph? Statistics???
You don't seem to know what speed makes a vehicle safe.

[Pistachio]

Pan Pan said:

Mave said:

Read what you originally said, reduction in speed will have minimal if any impact on road safety for the squashy road users. Which is clearly untrue because being hit at a lower speed is less likely to result in death

I ask again, how do you know you would survive being hit by a vehicle doing 20 mph? Statistics???
You don't seem to know what speed makes a vehicle safe.

Hit by a car at 20 mph, 1 out of 40 pedestrians will be killed. 97% will survive
Hit by a car at 30 mph, 2 out of 10 pedestrians will be killed. 80% will survive
Hit by a car at 35 mph, 5 out of 10 pedestrians will be killed. 50% will survive
Hit by a car at 40 mph, 9 out of 10 pedestrians will be killed. 10% will survive.

[Mave]

Pan Pan said:

I ask again, how do you know you would survive being hit by a vehicle doing 20 mph? Statistics???
You don't seem to know what speed makes a vehicle safe.

I have never said you WOULD survive being hit at 20mph. You could die being nudged over at 1mph. I do however think it is more LIKELY you would survive being hit at 20mph than 30mph or 40mph. Don't you?

[Pan Pan]

Mave said:

Pan Pan said:

I ask again, how do you know you would survive being hit by a vehicle doing 20 mph? Statistics???
You don't seem to know what speed makes a vehicle safe.

I have never said you WOULD survive being hit at 20mph. You could die being nudged over at 1mph. I do however think it is more LIKELY you would survive being hit at 20mph than 30mph or 40mph. Don't you?

The point I am trying (unsuccessfully) to make, is that in the case of mixing motor vehicles, with other types of road user, in the same crowded spaces we call roads in the UK, there is NO safe speed, none whatsoever. Anyone who believes there IS a safe speed for doing this, are deluding themselves.

[GetCarter]

Pistachio said:

O/T but 'typical' stopping distances... 75 metres at 70mph? WTF are they driving, ocean liners? Maybe they are asleep whilst driving. If that is 'typical', then god only knows what the cars with crap brakes will take.

[Mave]

Pan Pan said:

The point I am trying (unsuccessfully) to make, is that in the case of mixing motor vehicles, with other types of road user, in the same crowded spaces we call roads in the UK, there is NO safe speed, none whatsoever. Anyone who believes there IS a safe speed for doing this, are deluding themselves.

I agree with this, but disagree with your earlier statement that reducing speeds cannot improve safety. There will never be total safety, but that doesn't mean it can't be improved... :-)

[Pan Pan]

Mave said:

Pan Pan said:

The point I am trying (unsuccessfully) to make, is that in the case of mixing motor vehicles, with other types of road user, in the same crowded spaces we call roads in the UK, there is NO safe speed, none whatsoever. Anyone who believes there IS a safe speed for doing this, are deluding themselves.

I agree with this, but disagree with your earlier statement that reducing speeds cannot improve safety. There will never be total safety, but that doesn't mean it can't be improved... :-)

Reducing speed limits to lower than they are now, is just not the answer. If governments focused on proper roads training for ALL road users and especially children, that would have a much better effect. The only problem governments have with doing this is it means they would have to spend money, instead of taking it in via speeding fines, and Governments don't like having their revenue streams reduced.
They could save even more lives by banning smoking completely, only they don't do they? Wonder why not?

[0markymark0]

Pan Pan said:

Reducing speed limits to lower than they are now, is just not the answer. If governments focused on proper roads training for ALL road users and especially children, that would have a much better effect. The only problem governments have with doing this is it means they would have to spend money, instead of taking it in via speeding fines, and Governments don't like having their revenue streams reduced.
They could save even more lives by banning smoking completely, only they don't do they? Wonder why not?

Smoking tends to just kill yourself. When it became clear that 2nd smoke was a danger....they banned it from all enclosed public spaces.

You want to drive cars fast. You don't like the idea that reducing speed will cause less accidents and increases the chance of the person surviving. You asked for stats and were shown them.

You then say that people should be trained to avoid fast cars. Greater emphasis should be placed on the people bringing the danger to the situation. Speeding in urban areas should have a massive fine. Talking on the phone should be 6points and large fine. Drivers should retake test every 10 years. People banned should have to retake test.

But hey, let's place the fault on the little kid because big man in his big car wants to drive everywhere fast as is his god given right.

[Pan Pan]

0markymark0 said:

Pan Pan said:

Reducing speed limits to lower than they are now, is just not the answer. If governments focused on proper roads training for ALL road users and especially children, that would have a much better effect. The only problem governments have with doing this is it means they would have to spend money, instead of taking it in via speeding fines, and Governments don't like having their revenue streams reduced.
They could save even more lives by banning smoking completely, only they don't do they? Wonder why not?

Smoking tends to just kill yourself. When it became clear that 2nd smoke was a danger....they banned it from all enclosed public spaces.

You want to drive cars fast. You don't like the idea that reducing speed will cause less accidents and increases the chance of the person surviving. You asked for stats and were shown them.

You then say that people should be trained to avoid fast cars. Greater emphasis should be placed on the people bringing the danger to the situation. Speeding in urban areas should have a massive fine. Talking on the phone should be 6points and large fine. Drivers should retake test every 10 years. People banned should have to retake test.

But hey, let's place the fault on the little kid because big man in his big car wants to drive everywhere fast as is his god given right.

Completely wrong! smoking can and does kill those around smokers, not just the smokers themselves. but people NEED to get to other places. they don't NEED to smoke.
As for your other comments that's as serious a case of what aboutery as I have seen in a long time.
People want to drive cars, not necessarily fast cars.
Are you one of those people who believe there IS a safe speed that vehicles can travel at, in relation to other road users? If you are then you are seriously deluded. there is NO safe speed for vehicles, set against other road users. So what speed do you think vehicles should travel at, to be ``safe'in relation to other road users? I would be really interested to know.
When I was a kid, my same age cousin got killed, by running out between parked cars into he path of a car doing no more than 15 mph. That was when I learned he lesson `Be stupid, get cut' There is no protection from stupid no matter what one is doing.

[Mave]

Pan Pan said:

there is NO safe speed for vehicles, set against other road users.

Just because there is no such thing as 100% safety doesn't mean we shouldn't try to achieve an acceptable level of safety

[Blakewater]

Speed limits play an important part in road safety as it's undeniable that the risks of serious injury and death when an impact occurs increase the faster the vehicles are going. However, they only play a small part in road safety. The focus shouldn't be on making impacts hurt less, it should be on preventing them occurring in the first place. There should be more focus on driver attitudes and driver skill so people can drive quickly and efficiently but still safely. After all, even if people don't all enjoy driving fast, time is money and nobody wants their personal or work time wasted. I'm not talking about people thinking they have a God given right to drive like loons past schools and round residential areas, I'm talking about motorways and wide open A-roads through rolling countryside where speed limits are mostly being cut.

We also need roads to be wide open with good sightlines and plenty of overtaking opportunities and wide enough to get plenty of traffic through.

[Pan Pan]

Mave said:

Pan Pan said:

there is NO safe speed for vehicles, set against other road users.

Just because there is no such thing as 100% safety doesn't mean we shouldn't try to achieve an acceptable level of safety

I have never said we should not try to achieve an acceptable level of road safety. What I am saying is that governments in the blind naive focus that they place on speed limits, have been, and are going the wrong way about it.
If they believe low speed limits are the answer, why don't they just use legislation to limit all vehicles to 20 mph, that some seem to believe is a `safe' speed?
The simple answer to that, is that it would make the use of most vehicles almost totally non viable. No point in having, or using them.
So we travel at speeds (even the lower ones) which may `reduce' the level of injury in an road traffic mistake, knowing that they will not stop deaths and injuries from occurring on UK roads.
Nice and convenient for us, still tragic for the (hopefully reduced percentage) of those who are killed and injured in these mistakes.
If the government `really' wanted to reduce road casualty figures on UK roads, they would immediately begin a program of professional roads use training, and especially for children in schools, they would drastically upgrade the performance standard required to gain a motoring licence, and make regular checks on performance standards of drivers, like they do for pilots.
But no, they keep the level of roads training minimal, or even non existent, they keep standards so low, even a congenital idiot, can eventually gain a driving licence, and they make no ongoing checks on a persons driving skill (or lack of it) and then! surprise! surprize! they wonder why we still have deaths, and injuries, every single day on UK roads.
With this attitude from the authorities, and the blind naive, `almost' useless focus on speed limits, the wonder is that in a crowded country of 60 plus million, (many trying to use the same cramped, crowded spaces we call roads) the death and injury figure is as low as it actually is.

[djohnson]

Far far more respect than I used to have for them 20 odd years ago before speed cameras were around. I think if we could go back to the early 1990s prior to the current obsession with automated speed enforcement and drive around for a day we'd find traffic speeds were higher in many places since the chances of getting caught were pretty slim and speeding more of a norm.

[Pan Pan]

Blakewater said:

Speed limits play an important part in road safety as it's undeniable that the risks of serious injury and death when an impact occurs increase the faster the vehicles are going. However, they only play a small part in road safety. The focus shouldn't be on making impacts hurt less, it should be on preventing them occurring in the first place. There should be more focus on driver attitudes and driver skill so people can drive quickly and efficiently but still safely. After all, even if people don't all enjoy driving fast, time is money and nobody wants their personal or work time wasted. I'm not talking about people thinking they have a God given right to drive like loons past schools and round residential areas, I'm talking about motorways and wide open A-roads through rolling countryside where speed limits are mostly being cut.

We also need roads to be wide open with good sightlines and plenty of overtaking opportunities and wide enough to get plenty of traffic through.

Absolutely this, but whilst focus should not be on just drivers but all road users, especially children.

[DaveCWK]

I don't really respect any speed limits, I just drive at speed I feel appropriate. Often higher than the posted limit, sometimes lower. I would say I most often exceed the limit in 'now 30 for no reason' and 'now 40/50 instead of NSL because a stoned 17 year old left the road at 2AM in 2008' areas.

[Court_S]

Got to say that I'm not a fan of the new smaller BMW coupes (2 and 4). There's just something about them that doesn't do it for, whereas I preferred the coupe in previous generatiosn. I saw a 4 series cab the other day and with the roof up, the rear of the car looked too long. The E46 cab was a pretyy good looking car because it followed the lines of the coupe better. For me the saloon and touring are much better looking than the coupe and cab.

The new M3 in Yas Marina blue looks lovely. I don't think they sound too bad - the only one I've seen on the road was driving sedatley but it sound pretty chunky, certainly more so than previous generations (although they sounded amazing at the red line).

The weight does sound a lot, but most competitors will be about the same because of what we excpact in out cars these days. Toys and tech add weight and these ultimately sell cars...I imagine that a lot of these will be sold to people who want the poshest 3/4 series rather than enthusiasts.

[Kozy]

Court_S said:

Got to say that I'm not a fan of the new smaller BMW coupes (2 and 4). There's just something about them that doesn't do it for, whereas I preferred the coupe in previous generatiosn. I saw a 4 series cab the other day and with the roof up, the rear of the car looked too long. The E46 cab was a pretyy good looking car because it followed the lines of the coupe better. For me the saloon and touring are much better looking than the coupe and cab.

The new M3 in Yas Marina blue looks lovely. I don't think they sound too bad - the only one I've seen on the road was driving sedatley but it sound pretty chunky, certainly more so than previous generations (although they sounded amazing at the red line).

The weight does sound a lot, but most competitors will be about the same because of what we excpact in out cars these days. Toys and tech add weight and these ultimately sell cars...I imagine that a lot of these will be sold to people who want the poshest 3/4 series rather than enthusiasts.

[Pixelpeep7r]

Court_S said:

Got to say that I'm not a fan of the new smaller BMW coupes (2 and 4). There's just something about them that doesn't do it for, whereas I preferred the coupe in previous generatiosn. I saw a 4 series cab the other day and with the roof up, the rear of the car looked too long. The E46 cab was a pretyy good looking car because it followed the lines of the coupe better. For me the saloon and touring are much better looking than the coupe and cab.

The new M3 in Yas Marina blue looks lovely. I don't think they sound too bad - the only one I've seen on the road was driving sedatley but it sound pretty chunky, certainly more so than previous generations (although they sounded amazing at the red line).

The weight does sound a lot, but most competitors will be about the same because of what we excpact in out cars these days. Toys and tech add weight and these ultimately sell cars...I imagine that a lot of these will be sold to people who want the poshest 3/4 series rather than enthusiasts.

Thank you Jeremy Clarkson, now, how about something relevant ?

[M3DGE]

covmutley said:

The lower the limit, the more I stick to it. 90mph on a motorway is (conditions permitting) safer than 31mph outside a school.

I cant stand the 40mph everywhere brigade.

I can't be bothered trawling through all the posts, so I've quoted the first one I agree with. I am lucky enough to use the M40 for most of my motorway miles, and it's 90 all the way - which is keeping up with a significant chunk of the traffic. My house is on a 30 with a school close by, and I know the camera van is there when I hear drivers skidding trying to get down from the 40-50 that most blast past at.