Why speed?

[bobbo89]

As others have said, current speed limits are out of date and based upon the capabilities of what are now, classic cars.

When driving about in my 65 Beetle the limits make perfect sense. It tops out at 55/60 on the motorway and is happiest sitting at 40/50 on NSL roads.

Cars are so much more capable of gaining and reducing speed these days that the current limits are all too easy to exceed, even if your not intentionally speeding or driving a bit daft.

[vonhosen]

bobbo89 said:

As others have said, current speed limits are out of date and based upon the capabilities of what are now, classic cars.

It's not about the cars, it's about the drivers. Cars don't cause the problems, drivers do. Speed limits were introduced because of the failings of drivers on sufficient enough scale to force action & they remain because the failings of drivers still exist.

[anonymous-user]

vonhosen said:

It's not about the cars, it's about the drivers. Cars don't cause the problems, drivers do. Speed limits were introduced because of the failings of drivers on sufficient enough scale to force action & they remain because the failings of drivers still exist.

Some. Meanwhile everyone else has to put up with limits introduced in 1965. It doesn't take a genius to work out the difference between the technology.

[vonhosen]

yonex said:

vonhosen said:

It's not about the cars, it's about the drivers. Cars don't cause the problems, drivers do. Speed limits were introduced because of the failings of drivers on sufficient enough scale to force action & they remain because the failings of drivers still exist.

Some. Meanwhile everyone else has to put up with limits introduced in 1965. It doesn't take a genius to work out the difference between the technology.

Enough drivers on a system wide scale to pose a problem. You mitigate for the weakest link, the technology of the cars is not relevant while the weak link causing the collisions is that controlling them. Drivers still cause & have too many crashes so limits will remain.

[spookly]

vonhosen said:

spookly said:

vonhosen said:

You have the chance to vote people into power to debate & make those decisions on your behalf.

You still seem to be labouring under misapprehension that one of the only two parties with any chance of getting into power would do what we, or any of the rest of the public want them to.

The point is that's our political & law making process, not run it past each citizen for approval.
The main parties probably don't do what you want because it's not important/popular enough to force the policy through. It doesn't have enough support.

The USA has two main political parties, look at the lobbying power of the NRA, they get what they want.

In the UK there is no well supported body presenting a coherent cohesive policy/proposal for a wide scale increase or removal of speed limits.
How many active members do say the ABD have?
What's their policy or proposal?
If you were to stop 1000 random people in a UK city centre how many would know who the ABD are?

Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 21st August 21:59

Quite right. That is our political process. It sucks. When you realistically have only two parties you can vote to represent you, and both of them have a few positives but mostly negatives.... what are you going to do?

And lobbying them is very rarely effective, unless you are big business, or it is somehow incentivised for them... then you can achieve anything.

Is the use of common sense, analysing problems themselves, and coming up with better solutions not something we should expect from our 'leaders'?

[spookly]

vonhosen said:

yonex said:

vonhosen said:

It's not about the cars, it's about the drivers. Cars don't cause the problems, drivers do. Speed limits were introduced because of the failings of drivers on sufficient enough scale to force action & they remain because the failings of drivers still exist.

Some. Meanwhile everyone else has to put up with limits introduced in 1965. It doesn't take a genius to work out the difference between the technology.

Enough drivers on a system wide scale to pose a problem. You mitigate for the weakest link, the technology of the cars is not relevant while the week link is that controlling them. Drivers still cause & have too many crashes so limits will remain.

We have among the safest roads, even in developed countries.

Focussing on speed won't reduce collisions. We need higher driving standards as you said. So instead of policing speed why do we not have camera cars to catch people doing things that really are dangerous?

Personally I'd support mandatory retests every ten years, if it means I don't have to share the roads with some of the feckless morons that are currently using it.

[anonymous-user]

vonhosen said:

Enough drivers on a system wide scale to pose a problem. You mitigate for the weakest link, the technology of the cars is not relevant while the week link is that controlling them. Drivers still cause & have too many crashes so limits will remain.

Yes, let's forget about ABS, EPS, modern tyres, suspension, dynamic aids? How anyone with even a vague interest in cars can dismiss the last 40 years of development as 'not relevant' is beyond me.

Speeding doesn't cause crashes. inappropriate use of speed does.

[vonhosen]

spookly said:

vonhosen said:

spookly said:

vonhosen said:

You have the chance to vote people into power to debate & make those decisions on your behalf.

You still seem to be labouring under misapprehension that one of the only two parties with any chance of getting into power would do what we, or any of the rest of the public want them to.

The point is that's our political & law making process, not run it past each citizen for approval.
The main parties probably don't do what you want because it's not important/popular enough to force the policy through. It doesn't have enough support.

The USA has two main political parties, look at the lobbying power of the NRA, they get what they want.

In the UK there is no well supported body presenting a coherent cohesive policy/proposal for a wide scale increase or removal of speed limits.
How many active members do say the ABD have?
What's their policy or proposal?
If you were to stop 1000 random people in a UK city centre how many would know who the ABD are?

Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 21st August 21:59

Quite right. That is our political process. It sucks. When you realistically have only two parties you can vote to represent you, and both of them have a few positives but mostly negatives.... what are you going to do?

And lobbying them is very rarely effective, unless you are big business, or it is somehow incentivised for them... then you can achieve anything.

Is the use of common sense, analysing problems themselves, and coming up with better solutions not something we should expect from our 'leaders'?

Yes, but tinkering with speed limits isn't high on the list of priorities with everything that needs addressing in a political term.
As I said the NRA manage to force their issues in a two main party system because they have support from the voters.
There isn't support like that for car owners in the UK & if there were they would have sufficient clout to make our two parties take note/act.

[V8RX7]

vonhosen said:

It's not about the cars, it's about the drivers. Cars don't cause the problems, drivers do. Speed limits were introduced because of the failings of drivers on sufficient enough scale to force action & they remain because the failings of drivers still exist.

OK

You sounds like the Police when I've been stopped...

Do you know how dangerous it is to drive at 80 ?

As dangerous as it is for you to follow me.

I'm a Police trained driver

So if I pass the Police test I can drive faster too ?

No



I have sped probably every day of my driving career - spanning more than 25 years, many hundreds of cars, trackdays etc one wheel has come off and three total brake failures (the joys of the motor trade)

ZERO accidents for over 25 years so why do I get the same limits as a 17yr old ?

When the roads were Policed I was well known to the local Police and frequently let off with a Producer - because whilst I drove quickly, I wasn't dangerous, they knew 60 didn't mean 60 if it was a nice day and you were polite you'd be unlucky to get a ticket below 75.

I was caught at over 100 and let off with 3 points - these days it would be a ban and most drive through them - who does that help ?

[vonhosen]

yonex said:

vonhosen said:

Enough drivers on a system wide scale to pose a problem. You mitigate for the weakest link, the technology of the cars is not relevant while the week link is that controlling them. Drivers still cause & have too many crashes so limits will remain.

Yes, let's forget about ABS, EPS, modern tyres, suspension, dynamic aids? How anyone with even a vague interest in cars can dismiss the last 40 years of development as 'not relevant' is beyond me.

Speeding doesn't cause crashes. inappropriate use of speed does.

It's not relevant in so far as drivers still cause crashes in too many numbers despite the aids. They haven't stopped drivers doing it. They help, but the numbers are still too high so intervention is still required.
Speed does directly affect the severity of the outcomes, so if they are still crashing it's desirable to limit it if you want to limit bad outcomes.

[anonymous-user]

Try saying why speed to every one on the motorway. Believe me, if I'm doing 70, i'm usually in the slow lane.

[vonhosen]

V8RX7 said:

vonhosen said:

It's not about the cars, it's about the drivers. Cars don't cause the problems, drivers do. Speed limits were introduced because of the failings of drivers on sufficient enough scale to force action & they remain because the failings of drivers still exist.

OK

You sounds like the Police when I've been stopped...

Do you know how dangerous it is to drive at 80 ?

As dangerous as it is for you to follow me.

I'm a Police trained driver

So if I pass the Police test I can drive faster too ?

No



I have sped probably every day of my driving career - spanning more than 25 years, many hundreds of cars, trackdays etc one wheel has come off and three total brake failures (the joys of the motor trade)

ZERO accidents for over 25 years so why do I get the same limits as a 17yr old ?

When the roads were Policed I was well known to the local Police and frequently let off with a Producer - because whilst I drove quickly, I wasn't dangerous, they knew 60 didn't mean 60 if it was a nice day and you were polite you'd be unlucky to get a ticket below 75.

I was caught at over 100 and let off with 3 points - these days it would be a ban and most drive through them - who does that help ?

How dangerous it is to drive at 80 depends on the circumstances, there is always a risk but how high is dependent on the circumstances at the time.
It's still illegal though (even if it was acceptably safe due to the circumstances) because it's outside the parameters permitted.
If you get prosecuted for exceeding the limit it isn't because it was necessarily dangerous, it's because you went outside the rules, just as it is if you went through a red light when there was no likelihood of a collision.
If the allegation was it was inappropriate speed (that can be above or below the limit) it would be a Sec2/3 RTA offence.

It's a huge scale system & risk management of it. That's not going to done looking at and making rules tailored for each individual. The practical way to do that will be a defined single expected minimum standard/set of rules & apply those rules to all.

[mp3manager]

talksthetorque said:

Because they want to get to their destination. Just a bit sooner.

But do they really though? As a lorryist sitting at 56mph, I see the same cars overtake me 3 or 4 times in a given period.

Apart from us lorryists who are on the limiter & cruise all the time and driving at a constant speed, car drivers don't drive at a constant speed for their entire journey.

If you just apply a bit of observation for a while, you'll see for the vast majority of car-drivers it's.....fast-for-a-bit, driving-fast-is-really-tiring-so-slow-down-for-a-bit, really-fast-for-a-bit, catch-a-bunch-of-traffic-so-slow-down-for-a-bit.

Speeding to get to your destination quicker is really just a bit of an illusion.

[vonhosen]

spookly said:

vonhosen said:

yonex said:

vonhosen said:

It's not about the cars, it's about the drivers. Cars don't cause the problems, drivers do. Speed limits were introduced because of the failings of drivers on sufficient enough scale to force action & they remain because the failings of drivers still exist.

Some. Meanwhile everyone else has to put up with limits introduced in 1965. It doesn't take a genius to work out the difference between the technology.

Enough drivers on a system wide scale to pose a problem. You mitigate for the weakest link, the technology of the cars is not relevant while the week link is that controlling them. Drivers still cause & have too many crashes so limits will remain.

We have among the safest roads, even in developed countries.

Focussing on speed won't reduce collisions. We need higher driving standards as you said. So instead of policing speed why do we not have camera cars to catch people doing things that really are dangerous?

Speed does have a direct effect on the severity of outcomes (more speed, more energy, greater damage & injury).
Speed cameras dealing with speed instead of officers releases officers to deal with other matters.
How many officers are dedicated to roads Policing will be dependent on it's importance within the Policing plan.
Lots of departments fighting for a part of a pie that's getting squeezed.

spooky said:

Personally I'd support mandatory retests every ten years, if it means I don't have to share the roads with some of the feckless morons that are currently using it.

Will the masses lobby for that & want to pay for the infrastructure to do it when they may lose their licence to drive?
A lot of people confident in their abilities fail their driving tests let alone the less confident.

[V8RX7]

mp3manager said:

But do they really though? As a lorryist sitting at 56mph, I see the same cars overtake me 3 or 4 times in a given period.

rom us lorryists who are on the limiter & cruise all the time aApart fnd driving at a constant speed, car drivers don't drive at a constant speed for their entire journey.

If you just apply a bit of observation for a while, you'll see for the vast majority of car-drivers it's.....fast-for-a-bit, driving-fast-is-really-tiring-so-slow-down-for-a-bit, really-fast-for-a-bit, catch-a-bunch-of-traffic-so-slow-down-for-a-bit.

Speeding to get to your destination quicker is really just a bit of an illusion.

Sorry but that's bks - perhaps if you sat at 70 I could believe it but who the hell sits at less than 56 in a car ?

(I presume we are talking dual carriageways for you to be sitting at 56)

[XMT]

OP I disagree and agree with you on different points. Inside a 30mph zone then yes drivers should be very aware and very careful, sometimes I drive 20/25 if I need to, if I see kids playing etc If its in the middle of the night no one around then 30 is not what I do.

Now regarding other roads - dual CW and Motorway then your own your bloody own, everyday I see IDIOTS joining a dual CW or motorway doing 40mph - to me this is bloody suicidal considering its common sense and knowledge that most will be doing 70mph+ and joining at nearly half the speed causes disruption and a potential hazzard. I have seen idiots so scared of joining that they stop on the slip road and join at 10 mph once its cleared a little; again causing everyone to move in the outside lane.

I get very annoyed with people who get on their high horse about the speed limit, sit on a motorway and I would go as far as to say 85% are going above, cars have advanced that much.

I say this all the time but I would rather someone concentrating doing 90 on a 70 limit road than someone doing 60 using a mobile phone/having a wk/doing make up/ reading a newspaper at 60 in a 70 zone.

[768]

V8RX7 said:

mp3manager said:

But do they really though? As a lorryist sitting at 56mph, I see the same cars overtake me 3 or 4 times in a given period.

rom us lorryists who are on the limiter & cruise all the time aApart fnd driving at a constant speed, car drivers don't drive at a constant speed for their entire journey.

If you just apply a bit of observation for a while, you'll see for the vast majority of car-drivers it's.....fast-for-a-bit, driving-fast-is-really-tiring-so-slow-down-for-a-bit, really-fast-for-a-bit, catch-a-bunch-of-traffic-so-slow-down-for-a-bit.

Speeding to get to your destination quicker is really just a bit of an illusion.

Sorry but that's bks - perhaps if you sat at 70 I could believe it but who the hell sits at less than 56 in a car ?

(I presume we are talking dual carriageways for you to be sitting at 56)

I can imagine it happening through average 50 zones, that seem to be everywhere now, where the general public seem unaware that an indicated 45-50 is way below the threshold for getting a ticket and lorries can just sit on the limiter. But otherwise, yeah, it seems unlikely. I'll sit at double that for hours, I daresay in other countries people think nothing of three times that sort of speed.

[talksthetorque]

mp3manager said:

talksthetorque said:

Because they want to get to their destination. Just a bit sooner.

But do they really though? As a lorryist sitting at 56mph, I see the same cars overtake me 3 or 4 times in a given period.

Apart from us lorryists who are on the limiter & cruise all the time and driving at a constant speed, car drivers don't drive at a constant speed for their entire journey.

If you just apply a bit of observation for a while, you'll see for the vast majority of car-drivers it's.....fast-for-a-bit, driving-fast-is-really-tiring-so-slow-down-for-a-bit, really-fast-for-a-bit, catch-a-bunch-of-traffic-so-slow-down-for-a-bit.

Speeding to get to your destination quicker is really just a bit of an illusion.

If you're one of those wierdo drivers above who slows down to less than 56mph because they


I'm guessing most of your work is M62 and south?
If you're not in that area, or you drive in that area when the traffic is light, then you will find that the speed you travel is inversely proportional to time it takes to get there.
As someone who has driven Bournemouth to Manchester in 3 hours and Bournemouth to Newcastle in 5 hours my average speed was greater than 56mph.

[spookly]

vonhosen said:

Speed does have a direct effect on the severity of outcomes (more speed, more energy, greater damage & injury).

Agreed. Simple physics. Still better to prevent than reduce impact.

vonhosen said:

Speed cameras dealing with speed instead of officers releases officers to deal with other matters.

Yes, but I'd question the effectiveness of dealing with all but the most extreme offenders anyway. Prosecuting inappropriate speed I completely agree with.

vonhosen said:

How many officers are dedicated to roads Policing will be dependent on it's importance within the Policing plan.

Of course.

vonhosen said:

Lots of departments fighting for a part of a pie that's getting squeezed.

Yep. And prosecuting even minor speeding, often concentrating on roads where most judge appropriate speed to be higher than the speed limit, is both profitable and pointless.

vonhosen said:

Will the masses lobby for that & want to pay for the infrastructure to do it when they may lose their licence to drive?

There you go again, assuming that we only get what we lobby for. Whatever happened to principled politicians who come up with their own well thought out and effective plans? Why don't we have leaders that lead?

vonhosen said:

A lot of people confident in their abilities fail their driving tests let alone the less confident.

I've passed 2 UK driving tests and a motorbike test, all first time. I'm pretty confident I'd pass another UK test.
If I couldn't then why should I still be driving? The test is the minimum standard to be on the road.... if I am worse than the minimum standard after 20 years driving practice then maybe I should not be on the road.

It would be quite simple to have a system where drivers have to have a 20-30 minute retest when they renew their photocard, You could even make it compulsory re-training rather than flat out take their license.... just devise a way to ensure continuous improvement.

Personally I think this would make a better penalty than driving bans for anything but the most extreme idiocy on the roads. Instead of a ban make people pay out of their own money to retrain as a better driver. A driving ban is a very blunt tool and results in no improvement in driving standards.

[V8RX7]

spookly said:

A driving ban is a very blunt tool and results in no improvement in driving standards.

IME it is far worse than that.

I know many in the building trade who have received a ban - only one stopped driving.

The others saw that they had no choice otherwise they couldn't work.

So what it actually did was increase the number of uninsured drivers and in the case of the worst offenders they bought the cheapest vans they could find so they didn't mind losing them - obviously they weren't registered in their names and they didn't care about Speed cameras either.

Great system