Discussion
jazzyjeff 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'm referring to the quality of the legislation, not the level at which arbitrary limits are set.
There is much evidence that the presence of speed limits does little to influence speed.
It's crap legislation which fails to achieve its aims whilst criminalising reasonable behaviour.
Crap, and oppressive.
jazzyjeff said:
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.
Drivers will either sucessfully select an appropriate speed or they will fail so to do.
Sometimes that speed will be above the limit, sometimes below and, just occaisionally, equal to it.
The limit gives no clue as to what the appropriate speed might be, and is indeed largely ignored in the sucessful selection of appropriate speeds.
Speed limits do nothing, except criminalise reasonable behaviour.
jazzyjeff said:
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.
I've never done 180mph on the A-bahn and 170mph just the once, because it needs a lot of space, but 140-160mph traffic is unremarkable and checks its mirrors just like everyone else and rarely crashes.
Most people on the Autobahn drive at comfortable speeds similar to the comfortable speeds at which people drive on the Motorways here...
...but without the risk of prosecution.
vonhosen said:
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 ?
No, not offhand, but the lack of hard shoulders and tight radius junctions seem likely contributors and the higher casualty rates in countries with lower limits suggest that speed is not the sole factor, or necesarilly a significant one.
vonhosen said:
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 ?
Many fixed restrictions, associated with busy interchanges, are being replaced by part-time variable limits.
Many other limits are greenwash.
vonhosen said:
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 ?
It's the introduction of limits that is the product of pandering - to the Greens - not for votes but to form coalitions.
GreenV8S said:
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 there was any useful information to be gleaned from the posted limit that could aid speed selection they might be justified, but there is not, except perhaps in the case of 30s and 40s.
The blanket NSL gives no clue as to what an appropriate speed might be.
vonhosen said:As autobahn speeds have increased, so autobahn fatalities have decreased. Clearly deaths on autobahns are not dependent on speed.
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 ?
If you increased vaccinations, in the UK or in Germany, against speedcam flu and that type of flu deaths went down, would you say that speedcam flu deaths are related to vaccination? Why would you want a slower vaccination rate? If one death was caused by a reaction to the innoculation, or a single example of poor injection technique maybe, would you persist with a slow down in jabs? No, you'd look at the outcome in its entirety, you'd look system wide for the value of any benefit or disbenefit.
Do the same with speed.
turbobloke said:
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 ?
If you increased vaccinations, in the UK or in Germany, against speedcam flu and that type of flu deaths went down, would you say that speedcam flu deaths are related to vaccination? Why would you want a slower vaccination rate? If one death was caused by a reaction to the innoculation, or a single example of poor injection technique maybe, would you persist with a slow down in jabs? No, you'd look at the outcome in its entirety, you'd look system wide for the value of any benefit or disbenefit.
Do the same with speed.
Isn't it that autobahn limits are decreasing, not increasing.
More sections with limits than before, more sections covered by dynamic variable limits than before.
vonhosen said:Limits and their trends are irrelevant with overall vehicle speeds increasing and fatalities decreasing, the conclusion holds.
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 ?
If you increased vaccinations, in the UK or in Germany, against speedcam flu and that type of flu deaths went down, would you say that speedcam flu deaths are related to vaccination? Why would you want a slower vaccination rate? If one death was caused by a reaction to the innoculation, or a single example of poor injection technique maybe, would you persist with a slow down in jabs? No, you'd look at the outcome in its entirety, you'd look system wide for the value of any benefit or disbenefit.
Do the same with speed.
Isn't it that autobahn limits are decreasing, not increasing.
More sections with limits than before, more sections covered by dynamic variable limits than before.
In fact that's true in many ways - limits being irrelevant.
vonhosen said:
As I said earlier, if the Germans don't believe speed is an issue,
Why do 50% of the autobahns now have speed limits ?
I'd be interested to find out where you get this idea from.
The only speed limits bits of any size I know about are
the A61 West bank of the Rhine road and the Koln ring road.
I ca personally verify that the A4, A3, A45, A5, A6, A57,
A81 [ mostly free except around Stuttgart], A8, A7, A9,
A95, A93 and quite a few others are all speed limit free.
Some of the roads I have mentioned are 400 miles long.
I'd estimate about 10% of the autobahn is speed limited.
The A61 is basically the caravan route from Holland to
the South.
If you can prove otherwise, I would be glad to be corrected,
but I strongly suspect this unproved assertion joins a lot
of your other posts in the "Harry Potter" section.
On a more general point, if you are going to be posting
anytime in the near future, please make sure you post facts
as facts, opinions as opinions and don't get the two mixed up.
vonhosen said:
Why do thousands of kms of de-restricted autobahns have dynamic
variable limits ?
So that when there is a traffic jam [ Stau], then the limits
get switched in to ease the flow a bit.
vonhosen said:
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 ?
Because the Germans have a much more refined, realistic and
practical approach to traffic management than the UK.
GreenV8S said:
anybody travelling even slightly faster than that is then penalised as if they were driving dangerously.
No they aren't.
The penalties for dangerous driving are far more severe than for speeding.
On Indictment
Two years imprisonment and / or a fine.
Obligatory disqualification and endorsement.
Disqualification until test passed.
Obligatory endorsement - licence endorsed three to eleven penalty points (only if special reasons apply.)
Speeding has a sliding scale dependent on the margin over the limit & even that is getting greater flexibility under the road safety bill by the introduction of FPNs starting with 2 points instaed of 3 for smaller margins.
>> Edited by vonhosen on Friday 28th April 21:27
dcb said:
As I said earlier, if the Germans don't believe speed is an issue,
Why do 50% of the autobahns now have speed limits ?
I'd be interested to find out where you get this idea from.
The only speed limits bits of any size I know about are
the A61 West bank of the Rhine road and the Koln ring road.
I ca personally verify that the A4, A3, A45, A5, A6, A57,
A81 [ mostly free except around Stuttgart], A8, A7, A9,
A95, A93 and quite a few others are all speed limit free.
Some of the roads I have mentioned are 400 miles long.
I'd estimate about 10% of the autobahn is speed limited.
The A61 is basically the caravan route from Holland to
the South.
If you can prove otherwise, I would be glad to be corrected,
but I strongly suspect this unproved assertion joins a lot
of your other posts in the "Harry Potter" section.
On a more general point, if you are going to be posting
anytime in the near future, please make sure you post facts
as facts, opinions as opinions and don't get the two mixed up.
Take your pick of sources on the net
www.csmonitor.com/2004/0720/p01s04-woeu.html
http://gettingaroundgermany.home.att.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autobahn
>> Edited by vonhosen on Friday 28th April 21:24
vonhosen said:
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.
No they aren't.
The penalties for dangerous driving are far more severe than for speeding.
On Indictment
Two years imprisonment and / or a fine.
Obligatory disqualification and endorsement.
Disqualification until test passed.
Obligatory endorsement - licence endorsed three to eleven penalty points (only if special reasons apply.)
Speeding has a sliding scale dependent on the margin over the limit & even that is getting greater flexibility under the road safety bill by the introduction of FPNs starting with 2 points instaed of 3 for smaller margins.
But the point is safe driving shouldn't be punished at all.
If we change GreenV8S' final word to say poorly then your cop out statement above is meaningless.
vonhosen said:
Speeding has a sliding scale dependent on the margin over the limit & even that is getting greater flexibility under the road safety bill by the introduction of FPNs starting with 2 points instaed of 3 for smaller margins.
Woo hoo!
New! 33% less oppressive!!!!
Don't complain about being shafted, we're shafting you less.
I'm sooooooo happy I coud spit.
deeps said:
But the point is safe driving shouldn't be punished at all.
If we change GreenV8S' final word to say poorly then your cop out statement above is meaningless.
I disagree, the line from safe to dangerous can be crossed in a heartbeat & without it even requiring intent.
I prefer to see a measure that regulates the potential for people to cross that thin line, particularly where higher energy, less time & the consequences of it is involved.
vonhosen said:And all that in spite of overwhelming evidence that it won't help but makes things worse. Get away from your single driver in isolation and especially speed / energy in isolation, that's not real world road safety management in spite of being seductively plausible. There's a world of totally misleading road safety propaganda and silly speed limits and madcap automated enforcement out there and these have a significant and detrimental impact on outcomes.
But the point is safe driving shouldn't be punished at all.
If we change GreenV8S' final word to say poorly then your cop out statement above is meaningless.
I disagree, the line from safe to dangerous can be crossed in a heartbeat & without it even requiring intent.
I prefer to see a measure that regulates the potential for people to cross that thin line, particularly where higher energy, less time & the consequences of it is involved.
turbobloke said:
But the point is safe driving shouldn't be punished at all.
If we change GreenV8S' final word to say poorly then your cop out statement above is meaningless.
I disagree, the line from safe to dangerous can be crossed in a heartbeat & without it even requiring intent.
I prefer to see a measure that regulates the potential for people to cross that thin line, particularly where higher energy, less time & the consequences of it is involved.
With enforcement you are dealing with people in isolation, it's one driver there & then, that moment in time at that place.
>> Edited by vonhosen on Friday 28th April 23:43
vonhosen said:No, of course you're not. You're dealing with a significant subset of drivers who travel on dc's and m-ways braking suddenly and hard at the sight of any van parked on a bridge, another subset who rebel more widely and behave in a directly contrary way to the spin messages they reject, and the entire driving population aware of GATSOs and scamvans and the erroneous 'speed kills' claptrap diverting their attention away from more profitable safety related behaviour because they don't want to get caught and criminalised for driving safely. Rigid automated and oppressive nforcement also doubtless causes some drivers to travel too slowly on extended journeys in unfamiliar territory, leading to boredom and quicker onset of fatigue. Meanwhile the atmosphere of enforcement leads to an absence of sufficient responses by officialdom that relate to retraining, instead a few people get the chance to attend risible propaganda sessions - that just brings us back to the top and off we go again. There's more but that will do for now.
With enforcement you are dealing with people in isolation, it's one driver there & then, that moment in time at that place.
Setting general expectations for speed in an area seems sensible, it helps reduce the danger that drivers who aren't familiar with the environment will fail to assess the hazards accurately. But speed limit enforcement systematically discourages people from driving at a safe and appropriate speed for the circumstances, in favour of driving at a legal speed. The more effective the enforcement is the greater this effect and the more harm that it causes imo.
This only makes sense to me if the aim is to reduce speeds and skill levels to the point where it doesn't matter whether drivers make mistakes.
This only makes sense to me if the aim is to reduce speeds and skill levels to the point where it doesn't matter whether drivers make mistakes.
GreenV8S said:Driving by numbers and external vehicle control leading to licences being given out in cornflakes packets?
This only makes sense to me if the aim is to reduce speeds and skill levels to the point where it doesn't matter whether drivers make mistakes.
Ban smoking and fit detectors? Car fires can kill at 0 mph. No need for a fagcam though so it'll never catch fire. Sorry, never catch on.
vonhosen said:
But the point is safe driving shouldn't be punished at all.
If we change GreenV8S' final word to say poorly then your cop out statement above is meaningless.
I disagree, the line from safe to dangerous can be crossed in a heartbeat & without it even requiring intent.
I prefer to see a measure that regulates the potential for people to cross that thin line, particularly where higher energy, less time & the consequences of it is involved.
I honestly don't understand how you can believe that. Maybe you're talking about the one in a thousand drivers who push their cars to the limit on public roads? Although having said that, that in itself need not be a danger to anyone, attitude time and place being important and not speed.
However I was talking about the current measure of speed enforcement affecting the majority of drivers, that does not regulate the potential for people to cross that thin line from safe to dangerous in any way, shape or form. It merely measures their speed.
To control safe to dangerous we would need to have a system that judged the quality of the driving and not the speed per se, but thats difficult and obviously not where the money is.
So the current cost effective system continues to punish safe driving. There's no two ways about that.
deeps said:
But the point is safe driving shouldn't be punished at all.
If we change GreenV8S' final word to say poorly then your cop out statement above is meaningless.
I disagree, the line from safe to dangerous can be crossed in a heartbeat & without it even requiring intent.
I prefer to see a measure that regulates the potential for people to cross that thin line, particularly where higher energy, less time & the consequences of it is involved.
I honestly don't understand how you can believe that. Maybe you're talking about the one in a thousand drivers who push their cars to the limit on public roads? Although having said that, that in itself need not be a danger to anyone, attitude time and place being important and not speed.
But it depends on ability whether they are likley to become a greater risk with extra speed attainable by having no limit & it's not something that is ever tested. Quite right IMHO that something like that, if it isn't tested, shouldn't be allowed. If it's 1 in a 1000 pushing to limits as you say, out of getting towards 40 million drivers on our roads, that's a lot pushing to the limits.
You've only got to look on some other threads on different forums here with people openly talking about "Getting blown away by a faster car" etc ( www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=260991&f=23&h=0 ) to reveal people's attitudes in relation to what they do with speed on public roads. They are not talking about sensible use of speed, so best put workable controls on it & deal with people who do it then I say. There's no place for stuff like that on our roads.
>> Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 29th April 08:53
www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=260991&f=23&h=
And all these people, 12 pages of them caused complete and utter havoc on the roads while doing these dangerous speeds. Little old grannies and children littered our streets, carnage on every corner!
Or maybe it was, in their opinion, safe to go faster at that time.
The law says 70mph is the limit. Is it the super fast speed of 70 that people on here defend, or is it becuase "it's the law" as Judge Dread says. If it was changed to 85mph, then I am sure the same arguements would happen with the same people defending 85mph is fast enough.
And all these people, 12 pages of them caused complete and utter havoc on the roads while doing these dangerous speeds. Little old grannies and children littered our streets, carnage on every corner!
Or maybe it was, in their opinion, safe to go faster at that time.
The law says 70mph is the limit. Is it the super fast speed of 70 that people on here defend, or is it becuase "it's the law" as Judge Dread says. If it was changed to 85mph, then I am sure the same arguements would happen with the same people defending 85mph is fast enough.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff