speed limits - good or bad ?
Discussion
With reference to the top police driving instructor banned thread it seems that the posters agree that speed limits are good and necessary, however I am to a certain extent against this point of view, here are my reasons and welcome debate on them.
The problem with a limit is that it can not be realistic in every situation, in fact it is rarely realistic because it can not take into account weather, road condition, level of traffic, the driver of the car in front of you, your ability to control the car, the driver of the car approaching you and so many other variables that we all encounter everyday in our cars.
So what does a limit achieve? To my mind a speed limit denotes the maximum speed achievable on a certain stretch of road in perfect conditions with the worst driver driving, and the worst driver approaching you. I agree there are certain things beyond your immediate control, you can recognise them and adjust your driving accordingly, the numpty cannot and does not.
Would it not be better to have advisory speed limits everywhere (to help those new on that road) with much higher consequence for driving dangerously or without due care and attention? Personally I would prefer this, I know it costs money to enforce, and does not raise revenue but feel it would make our roads safer. Am I completely wrong?
Cheers
Paul
The problem with a limit is that it can not be realistic in every situation, in fact it is rarely realistic because it can not take into account weather, road condition, level of traffic, the driver of the car in front of you, your ability to control the car, the driver of the car approaching you and so many other variables that we all encounter everyday in our cars.
So what does a limit achieve? To my mind a speed limit denotes the maximum speed achievable on a certain stretch of road in perfect conditions with the worst driver driving, and the worst driver approaching you. I agree there are certain things beyond your immediate control, you can recognise them and adjust your driving accordingly, the numpty cannot and does not.
Would it not be better to have advisory speed limits everywhere (to help those new on that road) with much higher consequence for driving dangerously or without due care and attention? Personally I would prefer this, I know it costs money to enforce, and does not raise revenue but feel it would make our roads safer. Am I completely wrong?
Cheers
Paul
They have advisory speed limits in the tunnel in Conwy. I got pulled for 70 and acused of speeding. When I pointed out that the limits were advisory the officer seemed to think that this was the same as mandatory. I ended up saying "well, I have listened to the advice and I think it is Shite" He was apopleptic for a full five mins I could not stop laughing for ages. Speed limits are a very silly idea CS Rolls thought so as well so I am in good company.
In an ideal world where everyone is as sensible in their use of speed (and have an above avg level of trg) as most enthusiasts are - yes...but its not like that in real life.
Plus the complete inablity (with the current resources) of the Police to enforce/monitor our roads would lead to it becoming a free for all.
Ten years ago I could drive (ride at the time) around the rural area where I lived in the knowledge that I would see at least 2 or 3 traffic cars in the space of 60 or 70 miles (within the same county)
Now I can drive from London to Middlesborough (do this journey a lot) and not see a single car within 300 miles of motorway and A road.
Police nowadays are like the fireservice just reacting to accidents and reports...dont see how they have the manpower to proactively patrol the roads to enforce/catch anybody...thats what cameras are for isnt it
? !
Plus the complete inablity (with the current resources) of the Police to enforce/monitor our roads would lead to it becoming a free for all.
Ten years ago I could drive (ride at the time) around the rural area where I lived in the knowledge that I would see at least 2 or 3 traffic cars in the space of 60 or 70 miles (within the same county)
Now I can drive from London to Middlesborough (do this journey a lot) and not see a single car within 300 miles of motorway and A road.
Police nowadays are like the fireservice just reacting to accidents and reports...dont see how they have the manpower to proactively patrol the roads to enforce/catch anybody...thats what cameras are for isnt it
? !A blanket speed limit over a long and winding road cannot possibly be applicable to every variation in the road.
Does anyone actually want to crash?
If limits were removed or at least raised to be replaced by hazard warnings, for example, sharp corner ahead, blind corner ahead, school ahead etc, would you get people rolling their car at the first corner just because they haven't been given a speed limit?
I'm sure a few years ago there were more of these hazard warning signs used and that these seem to have been replaced by lower blanket limits that could only apply to the sharpest corner on the whole road.
Does anyone actually want to crash?
If limits were removed or at least raised to be replaced by hazard warnings, for example, sharp corner ahead, blind corner ahead, school ahead etc, would you get people rolling their car at the first corner just because they haven't been given a speed limit?
I'm sure a few years ago there were more of these hazard warning signs used and that these seem to have been replaced by lower blanket limits that could only apply to the sharpest corner on the whole road.
bogie said:
In an ideal world where everyone is as sensible in their use of speed (and have an above avg level of trg) as most enthusiasts are - yes...but its not like that in real life.
Plus the complete inablity (with the current resources) of the Police to enforce/monitor our roads would lead to it becoming a free for all.
Ten years ago I could drive (ride at the time) around the rural area where I lived in the knowledge that I would see at least 2 or 3 traffic cars in the space of 60 or 70 miles (within the same county)
Now I can drive from London to Middlesborough (do this journey a lot) and not see a single car within 300 miles of motorway and A road.
Police nowadays are like the fireservice just reacting to accidents and reports...dont see how they have the manpower to proactively patrol the roads to enforce/catch anybody...thats what cameras are for isnt it
Peep at this
www.hwysafety.com/hwy_montana_2001.htm
A free for all is not what happened in Montana when speed limits were replaced with "reasonable and prudent" speed laws.
One section reads:
Here is what the Montana data shows. (chart below) After all the politically correct safety programs were in place and fully operational, complete with federal safety funds, more laws and citations being issued. Here are the results.
1. After the new Speed Limits were established, interstates fatal accidents went up 111%. From a modern low of 27 with no daytime limits, to a new high of 56 fatal accidents with speed limits.
2. On interstates and federal primary highways combined, Montana went from a modern low of 101 with no daytime limits, to a new high of 143 fatal accidents with speed limits.
3. After a 6 year downward trend in the percentage of multiple vehicle accidents on its 2 lane primary highways, multiple vehicle accident rates increased again.
4. With the expectation of higher speed when there was no daytime limit, Montana’s seat belt usage was well above the national average on its highways without a primary law, lane and road courtesy increased, speeds remained relatively stable and fatal accidents dropped to a modern low. After the new limits, fatal accidents climbed to a modern high on these classifications of highway, road courtesy decreased and flow conflict accidents rose again.
All the important observations made in original research paper remain very germane in regards to this doubling of fatal accidents on Montana’s highways. (February 2000, Montana: No Speed Limit Safety Paradox) The following excerpts tell the story.
“Research scientists and engineers have long known that there are sometimes unexpected results from changes in public policies. Ironically, the paradox of no posted speed limits and low fatal accidents rates is no surprise to the traffic safety engineering community. “
I believe we need speed limits. If they are set and enforced properly they do three jobs very well.
1) They inform experienced drivers about expected hazard density.
2) They guide inexperienced drivers away from exceeding safe speeds by wild margins.
3) They provide an easy means for the Police to prosecute drivers using speed recklessly.
They do not do ANY OTHER JOB. (If you think they do any other job, let's hear about it and discuss it)
None of the three purposes is assisted by high levels of speed enforcementm let alone by automated enforcement.
Many scientific studies tell us that 85 to 90% of drivers do not exceed safe speeds on any given stretch of (normal) road. This gives us the "85th percentile rule" which traffic engineers recommend as the level at which to set speed limits. Above the 85th percentile speed is an enforcement margin - extending perhaps to the 95th percentile. Above the 95th percentile we find two groups - experts on clear roads and nutters.
More on: www.safespeed.org.uk/speedlimits.html . A Google search on "85th percentile" turns up all sorts of interesting stuff.
It takes intelligent enforcement to tell the difference between the experts and the nutters and to nick the nutters.
The bottom line is that the vast majority of motorists do not need any speed enforcement to tell them how fast to drive - they will choose appropriate speeds all by themselves. However intelligent policing of speed limits is effective for the nutters and the inexperienced.
Best Regards,
Paul Smith
Safe Speed
<a href="http://www.safespeed.org.uk">www.safespeed.org.uk</a>
>> Edited twice by safespeed on Sunday 11th January 16:06
>> Edited by safespeed on Sunday 11th January 16:09
1) They inform experienced drivers about expected hazard density.
2) They guide inexperienced drivers away from exceeding safe speeds by wild margins.
3) They provide an easy means for the Police to prosecute drivers using speed recklessly.
They do not do ANY OTHER JOB. (If you think they do any other job, let's hear about it and discuss it)
None of the three purposes is assisted by high levels of speed enforcementm let alone by automated enforcement.
Many scientific studies tell us that 85 to 90% of drivers do not exceed safe speeds on any given stretch of (normal) road. This gives us the "85th percentile rule" which traffic engineers recommend as the level at which to set speed limits. Above the 85th percentile speed is an enforcement margin - extending perhaps to the 95th percentile. Above the 95th percentile we find two groups - experts on clear roads and nutters.
More on: www.safespeed.org.uk/speedlimits.html . A Google search on "85th percentile" turns up all sorts of interesting stuff.
It takes intelligent enforcement to tell the difference between the experts and the nutters and to nick the nutters.
The bottom line is that the vast majority of motorists do not need any speed enforcement to tell them how fast to drive - they will choose appropriate speeds all by themselves. However intelligent policing of speed limits is effective for the nutters and the inexperienced.
Best Regards,
Paul Smith
Safe Speed
<a href="http://www.safespeed.org.uk">www.safespeed.org.uk</a>
>> Edited twice by safespeed on Sunday 11th January 16:06
>> Edited by safespeed on Sunday 11th January 16:09
Both and/neither.
(Yawn)
Past the local primary school you can have several ED-209s/local capita as far as I'm concerned.
But where traffic is light, the area non-urban or some form of multiple carriageway, there should be no limit other than common sense and the interjection of motorized BiB where they see fit viz a vis 'dangerous driving.'
So, 180 should be perfectly acceptable in short bursts where, for example, there is literally no other traffic.
Just because Micra driving McKnitting finds this excessive means not that it is.
The moment one accepts the limitations of others' feeble dispositions is the instance of our subconscious neutering, in this arena as in so many others.
Stick to your guns; speed is good...
(Yawn)
Past the local primary school you can have several ED-209s/local capita as far as I'm concerned.
But where traffic is light, the area non-urban or some form of multiple carriageway, there should be no limit other than common sense and the interjection of motorized BiB where they see fit viz a vis 'dangerous driving.'
So, 180 should be perfectly acceptable in short bursts where, for example, there is literally no other traffic.
Just because Micra driving McKnitting finds this excessive means not that it is.
The moment one accepts the limitations of others' feeble dispositions is the instance of our subconscious neutering, in this arena as in so many others.
Stick to your guns; speed is good...
Agree with Paul...my biggest gripe is that theres not enough coppers on the orad to enforce every other offence EXCEPT for speeding...I would sooner be judged by a real human being on my use of speed than a camera...adn drive in the knowledge that when I see numpties misbehaving, causing a dange to others, driving with bald tyres, p*ssed up, no insurance ...whatever that *hopefully* they will be caught...as it is today you can get away with blue murder out on the roads
ps - sorry for rant...drifting off topic !
pps - we need speed limits for reasons mentioned above...but we also need less cameras and more coppers
ps - sorry for rant...drifting off topic !
pps - we need speed limits for reasons mentioned above...but we also need less cameras and more coppers
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff