Speed Limits - Why are they set Low?
Discussion
Rolling on from my last question,why are speed limits set so low?
I have a very good idea
When someone passes their Driving Test, can we all agree that they are now driving at the absolute minimum standards allowed on the road?
Speed limits are set low to cater for these new drivers in my opinion.
A new driver tootling along a country road (60 limit)after just having passed their Driving test would think that this was fast enough and if they went faster, well, i wouldnt like to be in that car with them.
But, on the same road being driven along by Colin Mc Rae at 60mph would be possitively pedestrian like and i dare say that if he was driving at a ton + then he would still be totally safe.
Sadly though, the law cannot differentiate between driving experience in order to set speed limits higher or lower and they have to be set at a believed sensible limit. (not that i agree with Motorway limits but thats another story).
So many questions today but lets get this debate up and running!
I have a very good idea
When someone passes their Driving Test, can we all agree that they are now driving at the absolute minimum standards allowed on the road?
Speed limits are set low to cater for these new drivers in my opinion.
A new driver tootling along a country road (60 limit)after just having passed their Driving test would think that this was fast enough and if they went faster, well, i wouldnt like to be in that car with them.
But, on the same road being driven along by Colin Mc Rae at 60mph would be possitively pedestrian like and i dare say that if he was driving at a ton + then he would still be totally safe.
Sadly though, the law cannot differentiate between driving experience in order to set speed limits higher or lower and they have to be set at a believed sensible limit. (not that i agree with Motorway limits but thats another story).
So many questions today but lets get this debate up and running!
Rich...
When the limits were first set a great deal of research was undertaken into the levels they should be set at (fancy that, actual science and engineering research, rather than a knee-jerk response 
)
They are not, and never have been, set to principally respond to the abilities of cars to travel at the speed, but rather to the abilities of the driver.
Most limits outside areas of exceptional hazard were set at the 85%ile, ie: the speed at which 85% of drivers would find it reasonable to drive in the abscence of a speed limit.
It is likely that this speed has not changed significantly as it owes more to perception than to vehicle ability, which may explain why many NSL roads feel 'right' if you are in day to day traffic at or near the speed limit.
The 70 limit was introduced as a 'temporary' measure to reduce the level of fuel consumption in response to the worldwide oil crisis. It was not a safety measure, nor was it anything to do with AC Cobras...
) They are not, and never have been, set to principally respond to the abilities of cars to travel at the speed, but rather to the abilities of the driver.
Most limits outside areas of exceptional hazard were set at the 85%ile, ie: the speed at which 85% of drivers would find it reasonable to drive in the abscence of a speed limit.
It is likely that this speed has not changed significantly as it owes more to perception than to vehicle ability, which may explain why many NSL roads feel 'right' if you are in day to day traffic at or near the speed limit.
The 70 limit was introduced as a 'temporary' measure to reduce the level of fuel consumption in response to the worldwide oil crisis. It was not a safety measure, nor was it anything to do with AC Cobras...
Because the politicians don't actually want us havng the freedom to go where we want, when we want. They want the tax revenue, but they also want control over our lives, so they reduce limits to make it more and more "unpleasant" to drive anywhere.
What they don't seem to be able to grasp is that slowing everyone down has a direct effect on the economy and they refuse (due to short-sighted environemtalists who think that a road map reflects reality in the percentage of ground covered by tarmac TWATS!) to build efficient roads and by-passes which would in themselves reduce road-deaths.
Cars and people don't mix, especially with the "dumbing down" of society and a "no fault" culture that has been encouraged. Spend the money on separating the two and deaths will fall.
Overly control only one and the result will be carnage.
What they don't seem to be able to grasp is that slowing everyone down has a direct effect on the economy and they refuse (due to short-sighted environemtalists who think that a road map reflects reality in the percentage of ground covered by tarmac TWATS!) to build efficient roads and by-passes which would in themselves reduce road-deaths.
Cars and people don't mix, especially with the "dumbing down" of society and a "no fault" culture that has been encouraged. Spend the money on separating the two and deaths will fall.
Overly control only one and the result will be carnage.
So Tony, if the limits are set low to cater for new drivers, how are the more mature drivers supposed to improve their skills? Or maybe they dont want us to improve.
Imagine if all drivers miraculously improved their skills to a massive degree overnight.
The scammers would go out of business.
And without reducing the speed limits even a bit.
I always thought that the speed limit was set by knowledgable road engineers based on the 85th percentile. It now appears that some pencil pushing pinhead in an orifice with a degree in PC bollox is somehow qualified to decide the "safest" speeds.....
Given a choice, id take the engineers decision everytime, even if he set the limit lower, at least he would KNOW what he was doing.
Imagine if all drivers miraculously improved their skills to a massive degree overnight.
The scammers would go out of business.
And without reducing the speed limits even a bit.
I always thought that the speed limit was set by knowledgable road engineers based on the 85th percentile. It now appears that some pencil pushing pinhead in an orifice with a degree in PC bollox is somehow qualified to decide the "safest" speeds.....
Given a choice, id take the engineers decision everytime, even if he set the limit lower, at least he would KNOW what he was doing.
The over enforcement (although I suspect deltaf and I differ on whether any enforcement is appropriate) of arbitrary limits serves no-one. 50 limits seemingly introduced purely to generate revenue seem particularly cretinous as they generate an -accelerate to 70- *Gatso* -BRAKE !- -accelerate to 70- driving style, rather than the smooth constant 70 that often proceeded their introduction.
Based on my recent experience I suggest that all Police Authorities be forced to adopt the approach taken by Derbyshire. I've yet to see a bit of blatantly barmy enforcement yet in Berkshire I see one every day
The problem is that we all have such short memories. The debate about the speed limits should really include our lack of support for the temporary 70 limit imposed on the Mway and our campaign to reinstate the true meaning of derestricted. The vegetablists have by a series of stealth measures over the last 30 years created an entire industry based on lies and drug induced nonsense. The number of deaths on the roads has been reduced entirely by the improvement in the vehicles. All the other nonsense such as DD MOTs etc has not contributed at all.
Many speed limits are set low due to politics. Some are sheer stupidity.
The classic scenario is the road that was an NSL near the outskirts of town has a housing estate built off of it.
Instead of building a proper slip road the builder/council cheaps out and sticks a T-junction in. Unsurprisingly new residents find it hard to pull out. They complain...there's a prang...and bingo...the NSL is now a 40. People speed through the 40mph. Residents still find it hard to pull out. Instead of enforcing the 40mph they call for a 30mph limit - and bingo - what was an NSL is now a 30mph. People speed through the 30mph and residents find it hard to pull out and the council is petitioned to do something about it and - bingo - they put in 3/4 mile of traffic calming.
And all because no-one could be bothered to think about traffic flow in and out of the estate.
The classic scenario is the road that was an NSL near the outskirts of town has a housing estate built off of it.
Instead of building a proper slip road the builder/council cheaps out and sticks a T-junction in. Unsurprisingly new residents find it hard to pull out. They complain...there's a prang...and bingo...the NSL is now a 40. People speed through the 40mph. Residents still find it hard to pull out. Instead of enforcing the 40mph they call for a 30mph limit - and bingo - what was an NSL is now a 30mph. People speed through the 30mph and residents find it hard to pull out and the council is petitioned to do something about it and - bingo - they put in 3/4 mile of traffic calming.
And all because no-one could be bothered to think about traffic flow in and out of the estate.
I've long since thought that, in common with insurance groups for differing types of vehicle, drivers should hold a grade of licence to suit their abilities based on a graded test result. Maybe they should be limited to small engined cars as novices, and then graduate up to more powerful models as they improve their standings. I would like to suggest that they could be subject to different speed limits, too, but I cannot see a way of making that work. It makes no sense at all to put a rich testosterone ridden son-of-rich-git behind the wheel of even an Esprit, never mind a 911 on the afternoon after he scraped through the so-called driving test.
Tony,
your orignial point about a country road is why so many people hate cameras (or what they stand for). If you take the speed on that country road up to 65mph, the camera cannot distinguish between a learner who passed the day before and is driving beyond their skill level, and someone of the skill level of Colin McRae. Both would get nabbed.
your orignial point about a country road is why so many people hate cameras (or what they stand for). If you take the speed on that country road up to 65mph, the camera cannot distinguish between a learner who passed the day before and is driving beyond their skill level, and someone of the skill level of Colin McRae. Both would get nabbed.
motco said:
I've long since thought that, in common with insurance groups for differing types of vehicle, drivers should hold a grade of licence to suit their abilities based on a graded test result.
Spot on
Motorbike riders already get their power limited until they get some experience, so why not cars? That would also lead to the 85th percentile being raised as it could be calculated on more experienced drivers.
stackmonkey said:
Tony,
your orignial point about a country road is why so many people hate cameras (or what they stand for). If you take the speed on that country road up to 65mph, the camera cannot distinguish between a learner who passed the day before and is driving beyond their skill level, and someone of the skill level of Colin McRae. Both would get nabbed.
Exactly.
But its not the speed cameras fault....surely its down to the speed limits.
Hoiw can we reach a happy medium?
If a driver is at the limits of their ability at the speed limit, then the test is not tough enough. They should not be on the road at that stage of their experience or abilities.
There is too much pandering to the lowest common denominator in this country, it starts right at the beginning in schools and carries on from there right through life. It's reverse Darwinism and it does us no good. There, I feel better now.
There is too much pandering to the lowest common denominator in this country, it starts right at the beginning in schools and carries on from there right through life. It's reverse Darwinism and it does us no good. There, I feel better now.
tonyrec said:
But its not the speed cameras fault....surely its down to the speed limits.
How can we reach a happy medium?
Variable speed limit signs everwhere?
Outside a school at 8:30am = 20 mph?
Outside a school at 5:00am = 40 mph?
Motorway at 5:00am = 80/90 mph?
OR No speed limits whatsoever, but lots and lots of traffic police who can caution/nick anyone who drives like a t!t ?
The problem is not that the speed limits are set too low, in the good old days everybody ignored them and drove at speeds they considered safe. The chances of getting caught for just speeding 10 years ago were slim, unless you were really taking the p*** or driving dangerously. Now, however, it is a game of chance as to whether 82 on a motorway leads to 3 points (as it did on my license 4 years ago), or whether 57mph in a 30 (20 yards prior to a NSL limit in the middle of nowhere) leads to another 6 points on my license as it did 2 years ago. I do not have any problem with a Police Officer determining whether my driving is dangerous and awarding points, but I do have a problem with vans parked on motorway bridges or hidden in bushes trying to catch me exceeding an arbitrary limit.
The limits should either be set at a realistic level and enforced rigorously, or set low and common sense applied. (Please!!!)
The limits should either be set at a realistic level and enforced rigorously, or set low and common sense applied. (Please!!!)
Although this is an unrealistic example and would never happen, imagine this scenario. (Well the basic priciple behind it not the actual enforcement.)
What if; there were no speed limits, you could drive as fast or as slow as you like on any road. BUT, IF you have an accident and it is your fault the fines and penalties are much much higher. Therefore people who drive badly whatever their speed and ability are punished and the people, including a vast majority (I guess) of PHers who have honed their driving skills, drive performance related cars and actually CONCENTRATE , could enjoy safe fast driving without fear of blanket prosecution.....
What if; there were no speed limits, you could drive as fast or as slow as you like on any road. BUT, IF you have an accident and it is your fault the fines and penalties are much much higher. Therefore people who drive badly whatever their speed and ability are punished and the people, including a vast majority (I guess) of PHers who have honed their driving skills, drive performance related cars and actually CONCENTRATE
, could enjoy safe fast driving without fear of blanket prosecution..... Fat Audi 80 said:
Although this is an unrealistic example and would never happen, imagine this scenario. (Well the basic priciple behind it not the actual enforcement.)
What if; there were no speed limits, you could drive as fast or as slow as you like on any road. BUT, IF you have an accident and it is your fault the fines and penalties are much much higher. Therefore people who drive badly whatever their speed and ability are punished and the people, including a vast majority (I guess) of PHers who have honed their driving skills, drive performance related cars and actually CONCENTRATE
I'd drive just as I do right now - eyes forward, watch whats happening, pro-active and reactive.
I assume Tony is a Grade 1 police driver, I assume you could safely drive above most of these stupid limits as you would be aware of the hazards - yes?
Teach hazard awareness & how to react not force everyone to watch their speedo's.
PS whats the accident rate/per mile for police Grade drivers compared to the rest of Joe Public?
Teach hazard awareness & how to react not force everyone to watch their speedo's.
PS whats the accident rate/per mile for police Grade drivers compared to the rest of Joe Public?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff