Discussion
At about 5:20pm on five live, without reference to me, they played a clip of my words from the earlier Jeremy Vine programme, and allowed Ladyman to have a second bite at responding.
Extraordinary!
Listen again: www.bbc.co.uk/radio/aod/shows/rpms/fivelive/drive_tue.ram starts at 1:23:46
If anyone would like to transcribe it, that would be BRILLIANT!
Extraordinary!
Listen again: www.bbc.co.uk/radio/aod/shows/rpms/fivelive/drive_tue.ram starts at 1:23:46
If anyone would like to transcribe it, that would be BRILLIANT!
BBC: You're making a deadly mistake apparently.
SL: Utter nonsense. Safe Speed is not a sensible organisation, they have an anarchic view that speed limits are innapropriate and drivers should be able to make their own minds up, and as we all know who go out on the roads I'm afraid a lot of drivers are entirely irresponsible and so there do have to be speed limits, but this review it's not about that, this review is about getting the right speed limit for the right road, allowing local authorities to make decisions, but based on objective criteria that apply everywhere so the same standards should be being used in all parts of the country for judging what the safe speed limit is.
BBC: And what should those standards be, what are you giving as guidelines for the decision making process here?
SL: There's a whole raft of guidelines that they'll be following, but it includes things like asking them to monitor the existing speed on roads to see how fast motorists are already travelling if they're...if broadly speaking they're travelling a lot below the existing speed limit that probably indicates that the motorists themselves recognise that there's a problem on that stetch of road and that maybe the speed limit is too high. Equally if they're travelling very rapidly on a stretch of road and that there's no sign of accidents on it, there's no indication that it's a dangerous road, maybe the speed limit is too low and it will need to be put up. So they should be looking at those sorts of issues, they should be looking at accident statistics on stretches of road, and they should be asking themselves if there are other things that need to be done on a particular stretch of road where there are accidents in order to make them safer still.
BBC: It's fair to assume here isn't it, that if we are talking about reviews, most of these limits are going to come down rather than go up, now if that happens, you're gonna have to police them with either human beings [who'll?] stand there with a gadget, or we're gonna see more cameras on the roads. That's surely a fair conclusion for us to arrive at, isn't it?
SL: Well I have no view as to whether more speed limits will go down or more speed limits will go up, this isn't a contest. It's about getting the right speed limit on the right road. But what we're trying to establish here is a sort of deal with the motorist where if the motorist is convinced that we've actually used objective criteria to set the speed limit and can see that we've taken, you know, sensible decisions about a specific road, then they'll know that the speed limit's there for a purpose and they'll be more likely to drive within the speed limit than they are at the moment. At the moment, a lot of motorists think that we just arbitrairily set the speed limits, and so they feel that they're free to make their own minds up, and what we want to do is to establish with them that we're taking sensible decisions and then hope that they'll respond to that by being self enforcers.
BBC: I see in a previous BBC interview today that you have described yourself as a sinner who repenteth in this context.
SL: Well there's no secret about the fact...it was highly publicised when I first got this job that I once had nine points on my license. I'm pleased to say that four years without an offence, I now have an absolutely clean driving license, so I do know how easy it is to allow yourself to become careless and to think that speed limits are just there for somebody else's convenience rather than your own, and what we have to do is convince motorists that actually they're there for good reasons, they're there to make the roads safer, they're there for everybody, and I hope that motorists will see that if we put speed limits into a more appropriate context.
BBC: Stephen Ladyman, thank you for coming on the programme.
ALL THE ABOVE IS PROVIDED WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND! Please review it for mistakes as I've not had time to proof it.
SL: Utter nonsense. Safe Speed is not a sensible organisation, they have an anarchic view that speed limits are innapropriate and drivers should be able to make their own minds up, and as we all know who go out on the roads I'm afraid a lot of drivers are entirely irresponsible and so there do have to be speed limits, but this review it's not about that, this review is about getting the right speed limit for the right road, allowing local authorities to make decisions, but based on objective criteria that apply everywhere so the same standards should be being used in all parts of the country for judging what the safe speed limit is.
BBC: And what should those standards be, what are you giving as guidelines for the decision making process here?
SL: There's a whole raft of guidelines that they'll be following, but it includes things like asking them to monitor the existing speed on roads to see how fast motorists are already travelling if they're...if broadly speaking they're travelling a lot below the existing speed limit that probably indicates that the motorists themselves recognise that there's a problem on that stetch of road and that maybe the speed limit is too high. Equally if they're travelling very rapidly on a stretch of road and that there's no sign of accidents on it, there's no indication that it's a dangerous road, maybe the speed limit is too low and it will need to be put up. So they should be looking at those sorts of issues, they should be looking at accident statistics on stretches of road, and they should be asking themselves if there are other things that need to be done on a particular stretch of road where there are accidents in order to make them safer still.
BBC: It's fair to assume here isn't it, that if we are talking about reviews, most of these limits are going to come down rather than go up, now if that happens, you're gonna have to police them with either human beings [who'll?] stand there with a gadget, or we're gonna see more cameras on the roads. That's surely a fair conclusion for us to arrive at, isn't it?
SL: Well I have no view as to whether more speed limits will go down or more speed limits will go up, this isn't a contest. It's about getting the right speed limit on the right road. But what we're trying to establish here is a sort of deal with the motorist where if the motorist is convinced that we've actually used objective criteria to set the speed limit and can see that we've taken, you know, sensible decisions about a specific road, then they'll know that the speed limit's there for a purpose and they'll be more likely to drive within the speed limit than they are at the moment. At the moment, a lot of motorists think that we just arbitrairily set the speed limits, and so they feel that they're free to make their own minds up, and what we want to do is to establish with them that we're taking sensible decisions and then hope that they'll respond to that by being self enforcers.
BBC: I see in a previous BBC interview today that you have described yourself as a sinner who repenteth in this context.
SL: Well there's no secret about the fact...it was highly publicised when I first got this job that I once had nine points on my license. I'm pleased to say that four years without an offence, I now have an absolutely clean driving license, so I do know how easy it is to allow yourself to become careless and to think that speed limits are just there for somebody else's convenience rather than your own, and what we have to do is convince motorists that actually they're there for good reasons, they're there to make the roads safer, they're there for everybody, and I hope that motorists will see that if we put speed limits into a more appropriate context.
BBC: Stephen Ladyman, thank you for coming on the programme.
ALL THE ABOVE IS PROVIDED WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND! Please review it for mistakes as I've not had time to proof it.
ladyboy said:
SL: There's a whole raft of guidelines that they'll be following, but it includes things like asking them to monitor the existing speed on roads to see how fast motorists are already travelling if they're...if broadly speaking they're travelling a lot below the existing speed limit that probably indicates that the motorists themselves recognise that there's a problem on that stetch of road and that maybe the speed limit is too high. Equally if they're travelling very rapidly on a stretch of road and that there's no sign of accidents on it, there's no indication that it's a dangerous road, maybe the speed limit is too low and it will need to be put up.
So in essence he's saying that drivers are now responsible for setting the limits? Hmm I thought his view was that was unsafe.
Edited by JoolzB on Tuesday 8th August 21:12
JoolzB said:
So in essence he's saying that drivers are now responsible for setting the limits? Hmm I thought his view was that was unsafe.
Edited by JoolzB on Tuesday 8th August 21:12
So for the duration of this review, it sounds like we'll all have to drive at warp speed over the little traffic monitors to bring the average up
On a more serious note, if there is loads of enforcement how are drivers ever supposed to drive over the posted limit? By the nature of the study speed limits will surely come down. They can do the whole study again a few years after that and ratchet them down ever further.
LadyBoy says that if drivers are driving “rapidly on a stretch of road and that there's no sign of accidents on it, there's no indication that it's a dangerous road, maybe the speed limit is too low and it will need to be put up”
However the SCP boys will be saying “but there were x injury accidents and x fatal within x miles of this road so the limit needs to go down and a camera put on this road (it matches the criteria, x number of injuries or deaths within x miles (or is it km?) and there is evidence of speeding)
Therefore no limits will go up; all limits will stay the same or be reduced and extra cameras installed.
I smell BS through Dulux's finest.
However the SCP boys will be saying “but there were x injury accidents and x fatal within x miles of this road so the limit needs to go down and a camera put on this road (it matches the criteria, x number of injuries or deaths within x miles (or is it km?) and there is evidence of speeding)
Therefore no limits will go up; all limits will stay the same or be reduced and extra cameras installed.
I smell BS through Dulux's finest.
711 said:
JoolzB said:
So in essence he's saying that drivers are now responsible for setting the limits? Hmm I thought his view was that was unsafe.
Edited by JoolzB on Tuesday 8th August 21:12
So for the duration of this review, it sounds like we'll all have to drive at warp speed over the little traffic monitors to bring the average up
Already do go tearing over those little rubber strips. Bit difficult through the SPECS cameras but with a bit of a stop I know I can manage 60+ in a 40 without ever offending a camera (and the camera never lies, right...).
Thing is, my speed will be thrown out of the equation as an high-outlier, a mean taken, and lo and behold, in the face of much alternative evidence, the conclusion will be to lower the limits.
esselte said:
Have I read Ladyboy's reply properly...? he says that drivers are too irresponsible to pick the correct speed for the road, yet later he says that they will take into account the speed that motorists already do on a road to set it's limit?There's nothing like consistency is there? 
Tut tut you're listening to the detail rather than believing the initial soundbyte Beyond the initial soundbyte nu labia politicians sound like the uninformed incompetent half-wits that they (mostly) are.
711 said:
SL: ...if broadly speaking they're travelling a lot below the existing speed limit that probably indicates that the motorists themselves recognise that there's a problem on that stetch of road and that maybe the speed limit is too high. Equally if they're travelling very rapidly on a stretch of road and that there's no sign of accidents on it, there's no indication that it's a dangerous road, maybe the speed limit is too low and it will need to be put up...
Isn't that a large part of the SafeSpeed message?LB said:
SL: Well I have no view as to whether more speed limits will go down or more speed limits will go up, this isn't a contest. It's about getting the right speed limit on the right road. But what we're trying to establish here is a sort of deal with the motorist where if the motorist is convinced that we've actually used objective criteria to set the speed limit and can see that we've taken, you know, sensible decisions about a specific road, then they'll know that the speed limit's there for a purpose and they'll be more likely to drive within the speed limit than they are at the moment. At the moment, a lot of motorists think that we just arbitrairily set the speed limits, and so they feel that they're free to make their own minds up, and what we want to do is to establish with them that we're taking sensible decisions and then hope that they'll respond to that by being self enforcers.
This is good too, is he suggesting that current limits may after all be arbritrary, or is he saying that after they review they'll conclude that the limit is indeed correct and everybody will conform? I think that you could pick holes in most of what he had to say, at least perhaps he is starting to see that people are getting hacked off with current road "policing".
Edited by JoolzB on Wednesday 9th August 01:06
The problem with Ladyboy is he is making anyone who speeds sound like an outlandish mentalist blasting along at 100mph, yet most speeding convictions are probably within 20% of the speed limit anyway, people just going with the flow a little over the "limit"
He accepts a natural flow occurs on roads, and that might be above the speed limit, so how can he then say that the limit could be made higher? I thought drivers couldn't make that decision and only road safety experts (like him
) could?
Seems like he's saying that we can make a decision what is safe (by letting people speed and if no one crashes then it must be), surely that is potentially very dangerous by his arguement?
He doesn't have a clue, he contradicts the fundamentals of his whole arguement standpoint!
His arguement is about as solid as as the brown toilet water he often speaks from his back passage!
Complete idiot. How is this man allowed to represent us?
Dave
He accepts a natural flow occurs on roads, and that might be above the speed limit, so how can he then say that the limit could be made higher? I thought drivers couldn't make that decision and only road safety experts (like him
) could? Seems like he's saying that we can make a decision what is safe (by letting people speed and if no one crashes then it must be), surely that is potentially very dangerous by his arguement?
He doesn't have a clue, he contradicts the fundamentals of his whole arguement standpoint!
His arguement is about as solid as as the brown toilet water he often speaks from his back passage!
Complete idiot. How is this man allowed to represent us?
Dave
Edited by Mr Whippy on Wednesday 9th August 10:33
V8 Archie said:
711 said:
SL: ...if broadly speaking they're travelling a lot below the existing speed limit that probably indicates that the motorists themselves recognise that there's a problem on that stetch of road and that maybe the speed limit is too high. Equally if they're travelling very rapidly on a stretch of road and that there's no sign of accidents on it, there's no indication that it's a dangerous road, maybe the speed limit is too low and it will need to be put up...
Isn't that a large part of the SafeSpeed message?Thats exactly what I was thinking!
V8 Archie said:
711 said:
SL: ...if broadly speaking they're travelling a lot below the existing speed limit that probably indicates that the motorists themselves recognise that there's a problem on that stetch of road and that maybe the speed limit is too high. Equally if they're travelling very rapidly on a stretch of road and that there's no sign of accidents on it, there's no indication that it's a dangerous road, maybe the speed limit is too low and it will need to be put up...
Isn't that a large part of the SafeSpeed message?Of course. But think what happens when conditions change, from day to day, minute to minute or from mile to mile.
Heavy traffic / light traffic. Daylight / darkness. Dry / raining. Porsche / Transit. Pedestrians / no pedestrians. Bend / no bend. Wide road / narrow road. Winter weather / summer weather. Idiot road user nearby / clear road. Junction / no junction. Oncoming traffic / no oncoming traffic. And on and on and on.
Now the speed limit cannot be varied for more than one or two of those parameters along a route. So IMMEDIATELY we're forced to trust drivers to adjust speed according to conditions and the speed limit cannot (much) guide them in the task.
Edited by safespeed on Wednesday 9th August 12:40
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff