RE: Speed limit review rules out 80mph

[observer2]

711 said:

Observer2 said: Therefore, it would be wrong and potentially dangerous to encourage drivers whose level of competence and confidence, or personal preference, leads them to drive at (say) the 50th percentile speed to increase speed on the grounds that the 85th percentile speed is 'safer'. I would agree that encouraging drivers to progress at a speed greater than their ability would be dangerous. You must make a disctinction between the speed limit and the safe speed however. My experience of driving on national speed limit roads is that people will drive at their ability and to the conditions. Many folks (quite correctly) will drive at say 47mph depending on their car, vision, road conditions, experience, weather conditions, etc, etc. Just because the limit is 60mph does not mean that they drive at 60mph. Are you saying that if the motorway limit was set at a number higher than 70 that these people would drive faster than the safe speed? If so, why? Are you saying that if a higher limit was applied to the motorway that it would be an encouragement to drive faster? Given the point that NSL roads seem to show otherwise, what is your evidence for such a claim?

You're reading far too much into my post. I wasn't advancing any theory; I was simply observing that the belief, expressed (or implied) in the posts I referred to, that the 85th percentile speed is the 'safest speed', is profoundly mistaken. It is a mistake that many people make, but nevertheless a mistake, for the reasons I explained.

FWIW, I happen to think that the m/way speed limit should not be increased. Although I may agree with your observation that drivers on non-motorway roads do not 'drive up' to the speed limit', I think that there would be a tendency to do that on motorways because of the nature of the road. And that would be a bad thing because there are too many drivers whose observation skills/attentiveness are not really up to the job as it is, and a general increase in average speeds would make matters worse.

What we do need is a return to what we used to have - an intelligent, measured and proportionate enforcement regime.

[observer2]

711 said:

Observer2 said: Just to show how crap your observation is, the A40 at Denham (Denham roundabout up to Tatling End) is a 60mph limit. I take it from the context of your post that one person's observation is being used as evidence that motorway speed limits are already too high?

No - I was just correcting gazboy's factual error. It was a bit of a cheap shot actually - sorry.

[Parrot of Doom]

rotarykid said:

All this being said the death rate has dropped to the lowest level ever in recorded history .

Blimey, I didn't know the Americans had had cars that long!

[dcb]

Observer2 said:

The previous post you referred to, and your post, state/imply that the 85th percentile speed is the 'safest speed at which to drive'.

No, this is factually incorrect.

Try reading what I wrote again, please.

I wrote about posted speed limits, not recommended driving speeds.

The two are entirely different.

Back on subject, I think UK Gov should raise 70 mph limit to
80 mph on three lane or more motorways for a year long trial
period.

Let's get Britain moving and safer.

[dcb]

observer2 said:

FWIW, I happen to think that the m/way speed limit should not be increased.

Fair opinion.

observer2 said:

And that would be a bad thing because there are too many drivers whose observation skills/attentiveness are not really up to the job as it is, and a general increase in average speeds would make matters worse.

Not this again.

Speed isn't the same as danger, otherwise motorways wouldn't be our
safest roads, they would be our most dangerous.

A few folks can't cope, so it has to be spoiled for all of us.
Have you ever considered that the few folks who can't cope should
either avoid motorways or be trained up to cope ?

It is a continuing national disgrace that motorway isn't on
the driving test.

Meanwhile Mr & Mrs Average want to travel at a reasonable and
prudent speed and UK Gov won't let them.

Here is a list of European motorway speed limits in kmh.
Updates welcome. Note UK back marker in Europe for safe
and efficient travel.

Germany no limit
Italy 150 in 3 lanes / 130
Austria 130
Croatia 130
Czech Rep 130
Lithuania 130
Russia 130
Slovak Rep 130
Slovenia 130
France 130 in dry / 110 in rain
Belgium 120
Bulgaria 120
Finland 120
Greece 120
Hungary 120
Luxembourg 120
Macedonia 120
Netherlands 120
Portugal 120
Romania 120
Spain 120
Switzerland 120
Turkey 120
UK 112
Eire 112
Denmark 110
Poland 110
Sweden 110
Moldova 90
Norway 80-90

[apache]

observer2 said:

there are too many drivers whose observation skills/attentiveness are not really up to the job as it is, and a general increase in average speeds would make matters worse.

So rather than encourage better training, education, law enforcement, and realistic pass standards we should reduce everything to the lowest common denominator, is this progress? should we all look forward to a regression back to the pony and trap?

observer2 said:

What we do need is a return to what we used to have - an intelligent, measured and proportionate enforcement regime.

Absolutely! but catering for the odd person who should not be behind the wheel is as backward thinking as sending him a bill for speeding. We need to cure the problem not treat the symptom!

>> Edited by apache on Wednesday 21st December 11:22

[Observer2]

apache said:

observer2 said: there are too many drivers whose observation skills/attentiveness are not really up to the job as it is, and a general increase in average speeds would make matters worse. So rather than encourage better training, education, law enforcement, and realistic pass standards we should reduce everything to the lowest common denominator, is this progress? should we all look forward to a regression back to the pony and trap?

I didn't say that. We should encourage further training (active) and provide better education (passive), but until we have seen an overall improvement in standards of driving, or we have a system that can realistically differentiate between drivers of different standards, I wouldn't change the motorway speed limit. My preferred motorway cruising speed is ~80-90 mph. If the limit was raised (realistically, it won't be raised above 80mph), I would still be frequently 'outside the law' and it is quite likely that enforcement would be more stringent than it is now.

apache said:

observer2 said: What we do need is a return to what we used to have - an intelligent, measured and proportionate enforcement regime. Absolutely! but catering for the odd person who should not be behind the wheel is as backward thinking as sending him a bill for speeding. We need to cure the problem not treat the symptom!

Any system of regulation has to target, to some degree, the lowest common denominator. As I said, it's not the regulation that's wrong, it's the enforcement regime. The status quo was not changed by the creation of the 70mph limit - it was chnaged by the introduction of widespread, indiscriminate, semi-automated detection and enforcement. What I'm suggesting is simply a return to the status quo ante.

[Observer2]

dcb said:

Observer2 said: The previous post you referred to, and your post, state/imply that the 85th percentile speed is the 'safest speed at which to drive'. No, this is factually incorrect. Try reading what I wrote again, please. I wrote about posted speed limits, not recommended driving speeds. The two are entirely different.

You wrote:

dcb said:

Also, as another poster points out, scientifically, the safest speed limit to post would be the 85th percentile.

which I assume is a reference to:

Philbes said:

I thought that research had shown that the safest speed for a road was the 85 percentile.

Philbes' statement is somewhat ambiguous. I can't be sure what he meant ("driving speed" or "speed limit"?), but I have found it is common for people who are aware of the 85th percentile speed to believe it is the safest driving speed and that's the mistake I was aiming to correct. Anyway, I'm not sure what it means to say the "safest" speed limit is the 85th percentile speed. How can a speed limit be "safe" or "unsafe"? It's the speed of a vehicle that is safe or unsafe, subject to the circumstances.

>> Edited by Observer2 on Wednesday 21st December 13:05

[havoc]

To cut through to the logic behind the "85th percentile" issue:-

- If the drivers with least accidents ('safest') travel at or near the 85th percentile speed for a road, then drivers travelling notably quicker are likely to be more dangerous, therefore worthy of police attention.

Therefore setting the speed limit AT the 85th percentile speed for a road gives the police a marker to measure 'safe' progress on that road, for typical road conditions.

What it used to do was give people an upper limit to drive at, dependent upon their car and conditions. Sadly limits have not changed and cars have improved massively, while average driving standards have probably fallen. So we have people losing respect for speed limits and travelling faster, albeit in more capable cars.

What it will probably now do is give people a new target to aim for, regardless of their actual ability. In order to raise limits we need to separate in the public eye speed and safety, and also bring back in personal responsibility, not blind adherence to limits!

[Philbes]

Philbes said:"I thought that research had shown that the safest speed for a road was the 85th percentile."

I meant 'driving speed'.

However, Havoc expained it much better than I did.

[rotarykid]

huge said:

Peter Ward said: 90 would be a good start for raising the limit. It wouldn't affect the actual speeds driven but would remove the law-breaking element from it. Perhaps it might even restore some faith in the lower limits. ". There lies the "problem" The apologists use the current "tolerance" of 80 mph in a 70 limit as the mean.ie if we raise the limit to 90,their logic assumes we'll all do 100+ The only way to get an increase of the motorway limits will include a "zero-tolerance" policy against anyone breaking it......do we want that ?

This is an argument that has been proved to be incorrect in the US . In the states that have higher limits people don't drive faster than they feel safe . In Montana during the mid 90s there was no daytime limit and the average speed didn't skyrocket like the nay sayers said it would . In fact it was no faster than it was was when the 65 & 55 mph was posted .

We drive what feels safe & prudent , the 85th percentile . If a road is designed for 70 mph travel speed that is what we drive . If the road is designed for 80 that is what we drive . Regardless of what is posted we learned that very well in the US when the 55 max limit posted for 25 years .

In the US in states that have a 70 mph limit 72 mph is the average flow speed on freeways designed for 75 . And in states with the 75 mph limit on roads designed for aprox. 80 mph just under 75 is the average flow speed .

And as we proved in the US during the 55 max imposed limit over 25 years the ones that drive 80 + ( 80 to 100 mph ) a posted limit has no effect on them .

We have been fighting this battle over real world speed limits in the US since the late 70s . Only in the last few years have we won this war . The spoils are 65 to 70 on 2 lane rural roads and 75 on most freeways .

Cheers

[fluffnik]

apache said:

timbob said: A simple question someone should ask the transport secretary in a very public interview: "Is it possible to drive a car safely without a speedometer?" Obviously the only possible answer he can give is yes (a car doesn't even need a speedo to pass an MOT), and that proves that numerical speed has absolutely nothing to do with driving safely. Ithankyou. change 'safely' for 'legally' and you have the root of the problem

Remove arbitrary numerical speed limits; problem solved.

Next!

[stubby pete]

dcb said
"Not this again.

Speed isn't the same as danger, otherwise motorways wouldn't be our
safest roads, they would be our most dangerous.

A few folks can't cope, so it has to be spoiled for all of us.
Have you ever considered that the few folks who can't cope should
either avoid motorways or be trained up to cope ?

It is a continuing national disgrace that motorway isn't on
the driving test.

Meanwhile Mr & Mrs Average want to travel at a reasonable and
prudent speed and UK Gov won't let them."

Referring to the comment about Motorways on driving tests, I can understand that a complete novice should not be on a M/way. However a second phase to the test for those that want to use M/ways and maybe a different type (cost?) of tax once test passed to allow use might work. Only problem is that the Gov would obviously adjust the figures to their benefit and make millions out of honest motorists.

On another point, there seems to be some confusion between speed limit and speed target!

[8Pack]

Well, you know me folks...as left as they come hey? Well, not so much as you would think.....

The reason for this "travesty of Justice" and the "War Against the Motorist" is that the Nu-Labour government wants to continue it's social programmes (i.e. spending) and yet reduce Gordons spending overall. Road policing has been targeted as a means of raising capital "privately" by the use of "speed cameras" to pay for it, and so reducing Gordons burden. I disagree with this........

The correct device for this is Trafpol. And for that Gents.......You need to pay taxes! (sorry) But I'd rather be honest than deceitful.......I believe you should pay the price. Telling people that they can have it all and pay nothing, live in a perfect society, no crime etc...........It can't be done. That's why I don't support Tory B.Lair...

If you don't agree with what I say, I can accept that, as I hope that you can too. A rich man should pay his share........I,as a lowly peasant pay a larger percentage of my wage than you!.......Just what the hell are you complaining about? ......swap you

At least with me you would know where you stood......and that wouldn't be as bad as you might think.



>> Edited by 8Pack on Friday 30th December 04:50

[Zod]

8Pack said:

Well, you know me folks...as left as they come hey? Well, not so much as you would think..... The reason for this "travesty of Justice" and the "War Against the Motorist" is that the Nu-Labour government wants to continue it's social programmes (i.e. spending) and yet reduce Gordons spending overall. Road policing has been targeted as a means of raising capital "privately" by the use of "speed cameras" to pay for it, and so reducing Gordons burden. I disagree with this........ The correct device for this is Trafpol. And for that Gents.......You need to pay taxes! (sorry) But I'd rather be honest than deceitful.......I believe you should pay the price. Telling people that they can have it all and pay nothing, live in a perfect society, no crime etc...........It can't be done. That's why I don't support Tory B.Lair... If you don't agree with what I say, I can accept that, as I hope that you can too. A rich man should pay his share........I,as a lowly peasant pay a larger percentage of my wage than you!.......Just what the hell are you complaining about? ......swap you At least with me you would know where you stood......and that wouldn't be as bad as you might think. >> Edited by 8Pack on Friday 30th December 04:50

Are you John Prescott by any chance?

The enormous taxes we already pay are more than sufficient to pay for a huge increase in the numbers of traffic police, but our wise government prefers to spend the plundered money on employing more administratirs at all levels of the public "services".

[autismuk]

There's masses of money in the Police, as there is in all public services, but it is wasted on crap - insufficient ACTIVE Police Officers of all types actually trying to solve and block *real* crime.

Trafpol is typical. I don't believe for a second that Police Management thinks reducing trafpol is a good idea from the POV of actually making the roads safer. It just doesn't care about the consequences.

I know rather a lot about how Local Education Authorities work, and if the Police "Service" is the same, and there's plenty of clues to suggest it is, God help us, not least of all the poor BiB.

[8Pack]

Zod said:

The enormous taxes we already pay are more than sufficient to pay for a huge increase in the numbers of traffic police, but our wise government prefers to spend the plundered money on employing more administratirs at all levels of the public "services".

I agree Zod that a great deal of collected taxes ARE wasted. I can think of a few social programmes that I think are no longer necessary, though......by NO means all. Personally I'd start with unmarried mothers because I believe that the career choice made by many young girls to become pregnant to get a house, furnature, rent paid, all on the state is a drain that we cannot afford. It was a different world when these safeguards were brought in, there was no.."pill" then. I notice that many public servants are to be moved out of London because of the expense of operating there.. Yes.. there are indeed many ways to be more efficient.

But I'd prefer a government to be "up front" and honest about tax..and NOT bring in sleezy deceitful means to gather revenue like cameras...and even lowering the speed limit when a road doesn't yield enough profit.