Discussion
Might I suggest that the solution to the problem of the speed limit/no speed limit dichotomy might lie in a more intelligent approach to their use. I was under the impression that for a prosecution to be brought two prerequisites wer supposed to be considered; Firstly is the action in question in breach of the law? Secondly is prosecution in the public interest? Chavs racing around being dangerous near Yugguy = in the public interest to prosecute, someone doing 90ish while driving safely and couteously on a largely empty road in good conditions = not in the public interest to prosecute ( although pulling him over for a bit of a chat and a suggestion that at another time it might not have been an appropriate speed might be in order.) Application of the law does not have to be so black and white, because life is all shades of grey.
vonhosen said:No, in a lot of cases it won't, otherwise all the data we've presented on here to refute your claims, would not exist. Your position appears to be based, yet again, on reasoning by assertion, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. It seems to be based on some absolute hypothetical instance of absolute purity where speed is considered in isolation and the driver is outside of the system in which they operate. That's not possible and is why your argument falls down, it's not real world and its conclusions run counter to the data and evidence for thatr eason.
It (increased speed presumably) need not hugely or inappropriately increase risk & in some cases it won't. But in a lot of other cases it will
Yugguy said:Yes, you measure what's important (risk, danger) by observation of actual driver behaviour, rather than making important what can be measured in an arbitrary, automated and oppressive manner that turns out to be detrimental to road safety. Of course, that requires a switch away from speed cameras to wither trafpol or moer trafpol and other forms of observation. Better to remove dangerous drivers surely than to criminalise millions of drivers for behaving safely but in contravention of an assinine law.
If there's no limit how else do you penalise their behaviour? You have to have something to measure it again.
fluffnik said:Yes that's an accurate observation. It could be a form of refuge. Better to address the main points raised directly, and not go down sidetracks either unwittingly or deliberately.
You (7db) are very good at inferring that which turbo and I did not say and attacking that rather than which we did say.
Looking at the two replies above I think we are arguing about 2 subjects, speed limits and speed cameras. I'd love more bib on the roads with greater powers of discretion. I had a similar experience to a recent poster, in that I was stopped on a quiet motorway at night, I'd been doing mid 90s and was followed by an unmarked. As we sat in the police car watching my video the officer said that apart from the speeding my driving was good, good lane discipline, use of signals etc. I was annoyed, but more at myself for not twigging what the car behind me that had started following me actually was. I'm more tuned into this now as you can imagine.
So, abolish cameras but not limits.
So, abolish cameras but not limits.
Yugguy said:In short, yes, and yes.
Looking at the two replies above I think we are arguing about 2 subjects, speed limits and speed cameras...So, abolish cameras but not limits.
In long, the two are clearly related. The limits that remain need to be very clearly safety related and based on established 85%ile guidelines. I've mentioned several times before the two good reasons imo why we should retain some speed limits. But not all, some sections of motorway or modern high quality dual carriageway could be deristricted with allied use of variable limits.
But then, with limits, we retain the possibility of enforcement and here greed cameras simply have to go, they have no safety benefits, their claimed gains are illusory and involve regression to the mean allied to other dubious abuses of statistics as outlined by Garvin - in reality due to their vast array of limitations and adverse system efects, they actually partly offset some of the safety gains from improved vehicle safety, road design and medical treatments ... what remains is scandalously claimed by the pratnerships as camera related benefit! Absolute b0l0x.
turbobloke said:
Of course, that requires a switch away from speed cameras to wither trafpol or moer trafpol and other forms of observation.
Is your policy suggestion, then a trapol on every corner? Why not a granny who can form a judgement about whether your driving through her village is safe. Or perhaps we should require judges to examine videos of everyone's driving taken by roadside CCTV?
Perhaps we should train up enough of them that they can passenger every one of us on every journey?
Do you think this, or even anything approaching this (only without my hyperbole), is likely to happen?
7db said:No, a proprtionate trafpol presence, set to (say) 1990 before the itching that led to the North Report, with adjustments year-on-year based on the number of billion vehicle km driven on the roads. This approach gave us the safest roads in the world and has a hope of allowing us to retain them with a return to sanity in roads policing.
Is your policy suggestion, then a trapol on every corner?
There seems to be a misguided belief in officialdom and from shallow sat-of-their-shiny-pants thinking by braided topcop desk jockeys that technology and automation can replace police officers, and they'll still be able to "do the right things, and do the things right".
>> Edited by turbobloke on Friday 28th April 10:07
vipers said:
Because the behaviour is safe and reasonable, it's the law that is wrong.
How can you say the behaviour is safe and reasonable if your flounting the law? come on, cant have it both ways. Yes I understand there is a good arguement for raising the NSL, to what I dont know, certainly not to infinity.
Arbitrary speed limits are bad law, whatever level they might be set at.
Speed limits have little or no influence on speed choice, removing them does not greatly change average speeds.
Something being illegal does not stop it being safe and reasonable.
Something being safe and reasonable should however stop it being illegal
vipers said:
But bottom line is, we all know what it is, and if we choose to ignore it, and get caught, then we have to cough up, no good moaning about it.
The law may be wrong in your eyes, but as a law abiding citizen, I am of the opinion the law is the law, and I am happy to obey it.
That would be ideal, sadly the law is too often an ass; a kneejerk ill considered response to a long forgotten tabloid headline - Lots Dead in M-way Pile-Up, etc...
What reduced the death toll was crash barriers separating carriageways not the stupid speed limit.
vipers said:
Vonhosen said It need not hugely or inappropriately increase risk & in some cases it won't. But in a lot of other cases it will, because it is dependent on ability levels & people recognising & only performing within their ability levels. If we are going to have higher speeds we need higher ability levels. Legislation is written for all, not just the more talented at the expense of the less so.
------------------------------
Guess you have to read his link above, seems kind out of context here, but I agree with him, legislation is written for all.
No, it is often written for the most drooling idiot - bans on DIY wiring, speed limits,etc..
Removing limits will not result in everyone going for Vmax everywhere, they'll continue to drive safely in the speed range that is comfortable as they do now; they just won't have their safe and reasonable behaviour criminalised.
vipers said:
Suposing we had as you suggested NO SPEED LIMIT, whats to stop someone with a McLaren F1, or whatever you call them, or a Jag XJ220 zipping past at 210 mph on the M6, and dont tell me its OK in the right hands! common sense prevails.
But it is OK!
It works just fine in Germany.
I've covered more A-bahn miles at 60mph than at 160mph because, just like everyone else, I don't need a number on a stick to choose an appropriate speed.
vipers said:
I an not knocking that you may be the best driver in the world, capable of handling your steed at 150 mph, good for you, but for whatever reason limits have been set.
I'm nothing special as a driver but I appreciate being treated like an adult, as the Germans do, and being able to safely, comfortably and legally reduce my journey times by 1/3 to 1/2.
The reasons we have limits do not bear examination.
7db said:
I argue that any small utility blanket speed limits might have, and I doubt they have any, does not forgive the opressive nature of a law which criminalises reasonable and responsible behaviour.
So that's your statement of the trade-off of having speed limits. What is your policy suggestion as a result?
Is it the removal of all speedlimits?
Certainly all blanket extra-urban limit, yes.
I'm not convinced that limits work anywhere but they're not too objectionable in most built up situations.
I see a place for the sparing use of variable, part-time or stronyly advisory limits to protect non-obvious hazards or for flow management.
Yugguy said:
Have you seen some of the retards who screech round our estate occasionally in their chavved-up Saxos? Do you really think they would take pride in driving at a sensible speed for the conditions? NO! They take pride in driving as fast as possible in totally unsuitable areas.
...and speed limits prevent this behaviour how?
Ohhhh, gosh, they don't.
Mostly limits criminalise perfectly reasonable low risk behaviour, and that is oppressive.
If there's no limit how else do you penalise their behaviour? You have to have something to measure it again.
DWDCA etc.
Speed limits aren't stopping them are they?
Yugguy said:
I AGREE with the concept of speed limits. However I want them to be variable according to time/conditions and raised on motorways. I DO NOT want them abolished so that some shitty little scrote can race with impunity around the roads where my family might be.
Removing limits does not legalise dangerous behaviour, de-automating enforcement makes it more likely to be detected...
vonhosen said:
In every situation each driver has a range of speeds they will find comfortable, forcing them out of that range at either end is likely to increase risk, within it risk is fairly constant.
It need not hugely or inappropriately increase risk & in some cases it won't. But in a lot of other cases it will, because it is dependent on ability levels & people recognising & only performing within their ability levels. If we are going to have higher speeds we need higher ability levels. Legislation is written for all, not just the more talented at the expense of the less so.
Legislation is mostly badly drafted in response to banner headlines and pitched at, or slightly below, the lowest common denominator.
The NSL certainly falls into that category, having started as a reaction to pile-ups in fog and continued on the coat tails of the crash barriers which actually saved lives.
Please do not credit legislation with considered purpose where none is due.
vonhosen said:
Neither of us are claiming that driving faster improves safety, we're just pointing out that both faster and safer is posible.
We know that faster & still safe is possible, but when we look at the driving standards already displayed on our roads daily, do we think that is possible or likely in all those cases ?
I strongly suspect that removing limits would lead to much the same speeds at much the same level of safety, as it always has before.
fluffnik said:
Legislation is mostly badly drafted in response to banner headlines and pitched at, or slightly below, the lowest common denominator.
The NSL certainly falls into that category, having started as a reaction to pile-ups in fog and continued on the coat tails of the crash barriers which actually saved lives.
Please do not credit legislation with considered purpose where none is due.
That is quite probably true. But you've just contradicted your own argument. The reason that most speed limits are probably pegged 'at, or slightly below, the lowest common denominator' is simply that is the point considered to be most safe, i.e. the theory being that safety starts to be reduced at the speed that the most clueless numpties have an increased risk of losing control of their vehicles. Of course we all know this is an obsession with only one factor in accidents, and many limits are in dire need of a review, but in a democracy its something we have to live with. This is why the argument to significantly lift or remove limits BEFORE any attempt is made to raise the general driving standards of the population is flawed. If you follow Fluffnik's argument then what he appears to be saying is that people drive at the speed they are most 'comfortable' and are safest at this speed, and that, to some, driving their McLaren F1 at 180mph along a motorway is perfectly safe. Unfortunately this is making a massive assumption. It assumes that only 'safe' (pick which measurement you like) drivers own supercars and that they have higher than average 'comfort' levels. It also assumes that overall safety increases just because the F1 driver is 'driving safely and reasonably' (whatever that is). The argument for limits per se takes into account the following:
a) the possibility that some F1 drivers et al might not be 'safe';
b) the speed which they deem 'comfortable' at any given time is not in fact safe for them (i.e. confidence exceeds ability - they think they are driving safely when in fact they aren't - they may or may not seek to judge lack of accidents to justify this. I presume this is the typical mentality of the average chav yobbo).
c) that even assuming that a) and b) are not relevant in the case of a particular driver, this does not eliminate the safety levels of other road users from the equation, i.e. if some numpty driving at a lower speed (maybe even below the prevailing limit!) introduces risk to the 'safe' faster driver (e.g. wandering lanes without indicating) that the safe driver in travelling at a greater speed has less time to react and avoid a collision situation, and within that, the degree of severity of an impending collision. In short, there's no point complaining that you were driving perfectly safely and an 'accident' is wholly the fault of a third party if you're strawberry jammed across three carriageways. Who was driving safely in the circumstances no longer comes into the equation.
Going back to the German graph - is it possible to view a graph that's actually relevant to the discussion? The number of deaths issue is surely irrelevant (the reduction may be due to improvements to the effectiveness of car safety systems, or, as Fluffnik rightly says, to proliferation of crash barriers). What we need to see is number of collisions, i.e. have the number of collisions fallen in line with the number of deaths?
JJ
>> Edited by jazzyjeff on Friday 28th April 14:25
>> Edited by jazzyjeff on Friday 28th April 14:26
>> Edited by jazzyjeff on Friday 28th April 14:27
jazzyjeff said:Vonhosen had commented on autobahn safety and suggested that the different safety record between motorways might be related to their country's national speed limit (or lack of one). The data shows that's not so. While an autobahn might not be relevant to the UK directly, for the discussion at that time the chart was relevant.
Going back to the German graph - is it possible to view a graph that's actually relevant to the discussion?
turbobloke said:
Going back to the German graph - is it possible to view a graph that's actually relevant to the discussion?
Can you prove that the higher number of deaths on autobahns (which are 60% higher per billion km than ours) aren't related at all to speed ?
As I said earlier, if the Germans don't believe speed is an issue,
Why do 50% of the autobahns now have speed limits ?
Why do thousands of kms of de-restricted autobahns have dynamic variable limits ?
Surely if people can always be trusted to drive at appropriate speeds on autobahns without the need for an upper limit, none of this would be necessary. The Germans obviously think that people can't do that, so what is the sense behind having de-restricted sections other than pandering for votes ?
>> Edited by vonhosen on Friday 28th April 16:51
turbobloke said:
It (increased speed presumably) need not hugely or inappropriately increase risk & in some cases it won't. But in a lot of other cases it will
Your data doesn't measure the performance of the driver, whether any change has occured in their competency in relation to the task they were carrying out. The result of this would determine if they present an increased risk or not. The accurate real world change of risk that any individual represents can only be judged by observing the effect that the increase in speed has on their performance. Increased risk in behaviour that could lead to a collision doesn't always result in a collision, just as every act of dangerous driving that is performed on our roads doesn't, but it will still be more risky.
>> Edited by vonhosen on Friday 28th April 16:35
vonhosen said:In isolation no - but you keep forgetting that a driver doesn't operate in isolation. You really are immune to system effects; do you look often enough beyond your usual tutorial and assesment environment one-on-one?
Your data doesn't measure the performance of the driver (etc)
The data I present generally does far more than measure the performance of a driver - it presents all the outcomes of the performances of all drivers on various roads. Move away from the process based approach and look at outcomes, they are what really count. It doesn't matter how reasonable something appears or what is or isn't relevant to one driver in isolation, or considering one factor (speed) in isolation, nothing in road safety operates in isolation. The world of road safety is systemic because of the myriad of itneractions within it and many aspects of sound road safety policy are counter-intuitive. Certainly counter to political correctness, but then pc is the biggest waste of space since the last very big bit of space got wasted.
Speed limits serve a useful purpose in giving people a guide to a speed generally accepted as safe under typical conditions. If they were used as a guide, that would be great. If people who are travelling substantially faster than that guide are deemed to be driving dangerously then that's not completely unreasonable. The problem I have is where the limit identifies a speed which is generally regarded as safe, and anybody travelling even slightly faster than that is then penalised as if they were driving dangerously.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff