Wednesday 9th August 2006

Speed limit watch- dog now: ABD

Campaign calls for independent body

---

"Blanket limits harm safety"

The Association of British Drivers (ABD) has joined road safety campaign Safe Speed in expressing concern that the government's new speed limit guidance may actually increase road casualties -- and has called for an independent speed limit watchdog to prevent this happening.

The ABD argues that the new guidance, contained in Circular 01/2006, will see many speed limits lowered when they do not need to be, increasing tailgating, dangerous frustration overtakes and leading to a lack of respect for limits. This comes as many counties have now set artificially low speed limits on safe, clear roads yet seen no decrease in crash numbers.

Mark McArthur-Christie, the ABD's policy director, said: "Speed limits are about the bluntest road safety tool we have, but since the early 1990s we've seen more and more reliance on them. This new guidance will still allow local authorities to lower limits even further - even where there is no need - so we believe it's time that an independent speed limit watchdog is appointed."

The guidance in the Circular effectively allows local authorities to reduce most 60mph single-carriageway roads to 50mph or below. The safe speed for the road varies constantly, but limits increasingly bear little relation to it. This is leading to drivers aggressively tailgating those observing the limits and even attempting to overtake where it is not safe. The ABD believes this is bad for road safety.

McArthur-Christie said: "Local authorities have shown that they will lower limits even when there is no speed-related accident history and even when road conditions do not demand it. We need an independent limit watchdog to make sure that limits are set on road safety criteria, not political expediency."

• Association of British Drivers

[julianc]

Hear, hear - this must be the worst government directive regarding road safety for some time.

Edited by julianc on Wednesday 9th August 12:27

[aww999]

I thought no NSL roads were going to be affected? Is there somewhere that the text of this directive is set out online?

[chris_crossley]

I don't think it has anything to do with speeding or casualties. I am starting to think along the lines of reducing consumption of petrol/emissions. They seem hell bent on it, regardless of the stat's. You could even go as far as. Reduce speed, reduce petrol, reduce imports or petrol. balance export with imports GDP e.t.c

[sprinter885]

chris_crossley said:

I don't think it has anything to do with speeding or casualties. I am starting to think along the lines of reducing consumption of petrol/emissions. They seem hell bent on it, regardless of the stat's. You could even go as far as. Reduce speed, reduce petrol, reduce imports or petrol. balance export with imports GDP e.t.c

Fraid I tend to agree. There's an atmosphere around at present suggesting that political agendas/middle east conflicts/oil supplies/financial considerations ALL seem to result in motorists being targetted even more than ever. It all smells of panic & crisis management & indeed the consequences of years of mis-management by numerous governments and big players in oil who failed miserably to think ahead. Or am I being too dramatic & paranoid? I'm sure you'll all tell me....

[dragonship]

40mph would be good on narrow single track roads (my route home is one) but blanket an area as was suggested is barmy, i would never get into 5th gear. Also i remember when they said that 56 mph was the optimum speed for economy. i wonder if there will be high paid jobs for walking in front with a red flag

[tigger1]

dragonship said:

40mph would be good on narrow single track roads (my route home is one) but blanket an area as was suggested is barmy, i would never get into 5th gear. Also i remember when they said that 56 mph was the optimum speed for economy. i wonder if there will be high paid jobs for walking in front with a red flag

(My bold.)

I'm sure this is very different for individual cars nowadays though, as there's such a significant difference between, say a 75 bhp hatchback and a 520d. Things such as engine size and final ratios will play a big part.

I've got a red flag ready, I'm just waiting for the next time ladyman is in the area so I can parade in front of his car (he'll probably just tell his driver to "run down the pleb" though - possibly).

[widjit]

Another gov't body is not the answer.

There is already a gov agency to determine future policy and strategy - is is called TRL (transport research laboratory). The issue with it is that it's remit is very narrow - in fact it is almost exculsively Health & Safety oriented. The papers they produce are available to the public - I have used some in my arguments with councils re speed bumps & vibration.

The other problem is that the gov local & national ignore it when it issues advice that the gov doesn't want.

Messing around with more beaurocracy is not the answer.

Direct Action

Edited by widjit on Wednesday 9th August 13:45

[chris watton]

dragonship said:

40mph would be good on narrow single track roads (my route home is one) but blanket an area as was suggested is barmy, i would never get into 5th gear. Also i remember when they said that 56 mph was the optimum speed for economy. i wonder if there will be high paid jobs for walking in front with a red flag

I have to use one of these single track narrow roads to get to and from work work every day, and I can say that I have never gone above 30 - any higher than this and the braking distance would be too long to avoid oncoming traffic if it were coming around the corner - all good common sense, self preservation stuff. I have also NEVER seen anyone else going above this speed - it appears that the road layouts dictate the speed the majority of the time - someone has too much time on their hand and talking out of their ar$e, as usual - and we all suffer because of it..

[sprinter885]

widjit said:

Another gov't body is not the answer.

.......

Direct Action

Edited by widjit on Wednesday 9th August 13:45

Meaning?

[jasandjules]

Annabel, Fetch my Shotgun....

[Timberwolf]

tigger1 said:

I'm sure this is very different for individual cars nowadays though, as there's such a significant difference between, say a 75 bhp hatchback and a 520d. Things such as engine size and final ratios will play a big part.

I heard that NA petrol engines were most efficient at about 1900RPM, which would match up at 56mph for most cars, and also explain why cars with a very tall "cruise" gear can attain disproportionately good touring figures.

I found with the Omega it didn't make a huge amount of difference what speed you pick, as long as it's between 50 and 70. What impacts the economy is changing speed. Steady state on a smooth, level surface always returns about 45mpg on the "instant fuel consumption" display, but every so often you get caught up in something that requires a change of speed.

In real motorway conditions, I found that about 55 was the magic number. I didn't have to overtake trucks (except on steep hills) to maintain that speed, and I was travelling slower than the "bunches" of cars that occasionally collect in the middle and overtaking lane and prevent 65mph+ progress. The end result, verified at the pump, was 37mpg.

Now, on that journey my average speed was 48mph, yet when my target speed is higher, I still only average 50mph or so. This would suggest I spend a lot more time slowing down and accelerating again, thus fuel economy takes a hammering. (Down to 32mpg on a "fast" motorway run.)

That really suggests to me that the main focus on improving economy should be directed to improving traffic flow (better roundabout visibility, better road surfaces, right-turn refuges, better visibility on corner approaches, more overtaking opportunities) rather than a reset of the limit.

Also, as some fuel against a "one size fits all" approach, the Omega has a lockup clutch in the transmission that kicks in at around 48mph. This makes it significantly more economical at 50mph than it is at 40 - gentle increases in power go straight to the rear wheels rather than being wasted spinning up the torque convertor fluid first.

[JoolzB]

dragonship said:

Also i remember when they said that 56 mph was the optimum speed for economy.

Did they ever say that, I thought it was just a benchmark figure and always thought it was chosen as it was a convenient conversion from kmh to mph, 90kmh =55.9 mph.

[Nick_F]

Recipe for disaster. If you put a 40 limit on a narrow, rural road that is currently NSL then people will go from driving at the 25-30mph that visibility allows to driving at 40mph 'because it must be safe'.

NSL does not say '60mph is safe'. NSL says 'we haven't checked what speed is safe, so on your head be it'. 40, on the other hand, says '40mph is safe'.

[dave_sw1]

going to set up a new website called batteryheads, since 10 years from now we'll all have to sell our cars anyway, there will be a country wide 6mph speed limit and £15 a litre for petrol and £5k road tax plus additional congestion charges and tolls, might as well get in early for performance disabled electric car market!

[seefive]

Timberwolf said:

I heard that NA petrol engines were most efficient at about 1900RPM, which would match up at 56mph for most cars, and also explain why cars with a very tall "cruise" gear can attain disproportionately good touring figures.

Tall gearing.... yup. My NA engine at 1900 revs is doing just short of a ton. If they are worried about emissions, I'd be happy to see a law passed to restrict my revs to 1900 (in 6th only, 6000 in all other gears!!) and still allow me to be legal

And then I woke up..... New Labia are still in power... oh dear

[bridgland]

widjit said:

Another gov't body is not the answer.

There is already a gov agency to determine future policy and strategy - is is called TRL (transport research laboratory). The issue with it is that it's remit is very narrow - in fact it is almost exculsively Health & Safety oriented. The papers they produce are available to the public - I have used some in my arguments with councils re speed bumps & vibration.

The other problem is that the gov local & national ignore it when it issues advice that the gov doesn't want.

Messing around with more beaurocracy is not the answer.

Direct Action

Edited by widjit on Wednesday 9th August 13:45

What we want is the real root cause of the accidents, however you will never get the true answer if you ask accident victims.

What could be done is a testing of scenarios by TRL. Get a bunch of Pistonheads that are against speed limit enforcement (I would volunteer), a bunch of advanced driving instructors (need a benchmark), take them all to a safe location such as TRL for a week and go through each scenario.

Examples
- Night driving
- Wet Weather
- Sunshine just after rain (glare from the glistening road)
- Driving a course with good visibility and then without (e.g. bring in some fake bushes and narrow the course) and see the adjustment to driving styles
- Alcohol
- Tiredness - (Apparently Tiredness kills too....!)
- poor vehicle maintenance (tyres worn, poor brakes, etc.)
- Enforced Swift driving (e.g. when refreshed as well as tired)

Edited by bridgland on Wednesday 9th August 15:01

[james_j]

The ABD and Safespeed have said it all really in the initial article above.

The utter stupidity of pursuing a policy that doesn't achieve what it is (supposedly) set out to (reduce accidents) and when it is obvious it's not working, to pursue the policy with even greater vigour (i.e. lower limits even further). Insane.

[Imperialism2024]

Timberwolf said:

What impacts the economy is changing speed.

Exactly what not many people like to believe. Even when I cruise at 90-95, I still get about 25mpg. Cruising at 80-85 gets me about 30mpg, which I assume is because I don't have to keep slowing down and speeding up to get around slower traffic.


As for disregard of the speed limit, already here in Pennsylvania most communities' drivers establish their own interpretations of the speed limit, and the local police tend to observe these interpretations. The bare minimum in any area is 5mph over the limit. Even the slowest drivers go 30mph in a 25 zone, 40 in a 35, etc. In many areas that have a high traffic flow, yet still have a 25mph limit, everyone (really, everyone) will go 40. Highways? Even in rush hour traffic, right lane traffic moves at 65 in a 55, and 75 in the left lane. Really, in this state speed limits are seen as a guide rather than a limit.

[Peter Ward]

Timberwolf said:

What impacts the economy is changing speed.

I agree. When you take time to sense where you accelerator foot is, you find it's pretty much at the top of its travel whether you're doing 70 or 90 (allegedly). When it goes to the floor is only during rapid acceleration.

Whenever these potty proposals are touted they always talk about x million tons of CO2 saved, but never put that into perspective by giving a percentage. My guess is that's deliberate -- the percentage would be miniscule. But drivers are fair game, the policy is to get everyone onto buses and trains (no there's no seats but so what), and if the new pretext for lowering limits is CO2 instead of safety then which MP cares?

[bridgland]

Peter Ward said:

Whenever these potty proposals are touted they always talk about x million tons of CO2 saved, but never put that into perspective by giving a percentage.

Paint this picture: -
- I drive slower so I produce less CO2.
- I spend more time in the car to do the same journey, therefore I am not producing anything for my employer but CO2 (some people may say I produce gas even when working!).
- My firm used to charge me out at £2,000 per day (when I did consulting), which is £250 per working hour.
- For every hour extra I spend travelling, I could be costing my company £250 if it eats into billable time.

The government need to understand the linked impact that this also has on businesses. Am I going to get up earlier to save CO2 emissions? No! Am I going to work longer hours to make up for my lost time? Not necessarily!