speed limits and circumstances
Discussion
I do over 200 miles a day - mostly at 80 to 90 - and as I do it pre - rush hour and it is motorway everything seems safe (please read the rest before jumping to conclusions).
However, on a day off today, cruising round a town looking for property the 30 mph limit seemed very fast - lots of kids on the streets and lots of parked cars.
So I dropped to 20 or so - only to get flashed by a numptie.
It seems bizarre that I could be busted on my day to day journey where the risk of running someone down is minimal but round town I can do a speed which will easily kill a child but it is legal?
Maybe we need "means tested" speed limits - where peoples ability to drive at speed (subject to conditions) is examined and limits set.
What do people think?
However, on a day off today, cruising round a town looking for property the 30 mph limit seemed very fast - lots of kids on the streets and lots of parked cars.
So I dropped to 20 or so - only to get flashed by a numptie.
It seems bizarre that I could be busted on my day to day journey where the risk of running someone down is minimal but round town I can do a speed which will easily kill a child but it is legal?
Maybe we need "means tested" speed limits - where peoples ability to drive at speed (subject to conditions) is examined and limits set.
What do people think?
This is something I've always said should happen...
It should be vehicle related too - say 2 grades of MOT pass for high and low speed based on vehicle condition and capability. Perhaps it would encourage more people to think about car maintainance?
After all, there is this wonderful system for issuing us with fines should we be unable to tax our car immediately
how about it does something useful?
It should be vehicle related too - say 2 grades of MOT pass for high and low speed based on vehicle condition and capability. Perhaps it would encourage more people to think about car maintainance?
After all, there is this wonderful system for issuing us with fines should we be unable to tax our car immediately
how about it does something useful?x5x3 said:
What do people think?
I think the range & complexity of suitable speeds is hard to legislate sensibly for.
Isle of Man has the best solution - 30 mph in town, and then outside town there are no limits, and you have to think for yourself.
This "thinking for yourself" is a complete non-starter with all UK politicians, and most of the population as well.
It'll never happen -we'll just bimble along, perpetuating the 1960s, as we have done for the last forty years.
x5x3 said:
What do people think?
You are talking about setting a safe and appropriate speed for the conditions. This is really the essence of driving and involves (for example) the following behaviours:
* Setting a speed so that you can stop within the distance that you know to be clear. (known as "the safe speed rule")
* Setting a suitable speed to negotiate a hazard.
* Slowing down in areas of danger.
Speed that violates these basic rules is termed "inappropriate speed" or "misuse of speed" and is actually dangerous - "Safe Speed" is the opposite.
Safe speed is not something that can usefully be measured in miles per hour.
It has become very obvious to me that increasing emphasis on speed limit compliance has tended to convince many drivers that their speed setting duties will be fulfilled if they stick to the speed limit. This is dangerous nonsense.
We must start again to give out messages about the safe use of speed if we wish to improve road safety.
See my web site.
Best Regards,
Paul Smith
Safe Speed
www.safespeed.org.uk
safespeed said:
It has become very obvious to me that increasing emphasis on speed limit compliance has tended to convince many drivers that their speed setting duties will be fulfilled if they stick to the speed limit. This is dangerous nonsense.
I agree it is dangerous nonsense to feel that simply driving at the speed limit fulfills a drivers duties. I drive at all speeds within the limit.
But what I find surprising is that you feel that many drivers observe the limits at all. My experience, driving 40k per year mainly around the north of England, is that very few drivers take any notice of any speed limits. Increasing emphasis on speed limit compliance has been forced on us by the wholesale flaunting of speed limits. Or am I wrong?
andrew54 said:
It has become very obvious to me that increasing emphasis on speed limit compliance has tended to convince many drivers that their speed setting duties will be fulfilled if they stick to the speed limit. This is dangerous nonsense.
I agree it is dangerous nonsense to feel that simply driving at the speed limit fulfills a drivers duties. I drive at all speeds within the limit.
But what I find surprising is that you feel that many drivers observe the limits at all. My experience, driving 40k per year mainly around the north of England, is that very few drivers take any notice of any speed limits. Increasing emphasis on speed limit compliance has been forced on us by the wholesale flaunting of speed limits. Or am I wrong?
From 1929 until 1934 America banned the sale of Alcohol. 80% of Americans then became criminals. Famously Groucho Marx said "I was TT until prohibition".
Stupid people sometimes get elected and make stupid laws. Only the very oppressed or the very stupid obey them.
andrew54 said:
I agree it is dangerous nonsense to feel that simply driving at the speed limit fulfills a drivers duties. I drive at all speeds within the limit.
Indeed. Limits or not. It is the duty of every driver to travel at an appropriate speed for the road...and, of course, within the law. That last part gets hard when the speed limit for the road is totally inappropriate. I suspect it is these limits that are habitually broken by considerate drivers.
Inconsiderate and unthinking drivers will continue to drive at totally inappropriate speeds everywhere until they are caught..and even then they may simply ignore the punishments handed to them by the state.
andrew54 said:
Increasing emphasis on speed limit compliance has been forced on us by the wholesale flaunting of speed limits. Or am I wrong?
You are wrong. Increasing emphasis on speed limit compliance has been forced upon us because now it is technically possible to do so.
I am minded of the old adage:
"Measure that which is important. Do not make important that which you are simply able to measure."
Don said:I agree with Don.
Increasing emphasis on speed limit compliance has been forced on us by the wholesale flaunting of speed limits. Or am I wrong?
I am minded of the old adage:
"Measure that which is important. Do not make important that which you are simply able to measure."
The increasing emphasis on speed has all been to do with the invention of the gatso. Until then the emphasis was on improving road safety in all areas - and it was working if you look at the figures for accident rates from the 60's to the early 90's. Figures, which I would add, that noone disputes. It is only the figures since the advent of the Gatso that are in dispute and I don't think even the most committed Gatso supporter can refute that even the best case scenario is that the improvement in accident rates has slowed dramatically since their introduction. (Worst case is the one we know as them having become completely static).
andrew54 said:
It has become very obvious to me that increasing emphasis on speed limit compliance has tended to convince many drivers that their speed setting duties will be fulfilled if they stick to the speed limit. This is dangerous nonsense.
I agree it is dangerous nonsense to feel that simply driving at the speed limit fulfills a drivers duties. I drive at all speeds within the limit.
But what I find surprising is that you feel that many drivers observe the limits at all. My experience, driving 40k per year mainly around the north of England, is that very few drivers take any notice of any speed limits.
We can look at groups of drivers and ranges of circumstances and start to build a picture. Most people agree that virtually everyone exceeds a speed limit on occasion. Around town in 30 limits in the last official survey 59% of drivers were exceeding the 30mph limit in free flowing traffic at sample sites. This is reported in a publication called "VSGB" that seems to have disappeared inexplicably from the DfT website. However you can download the last 6 annual copies from this Safe Speed link:
www.safespeed.org.uk/vsgb.zip (6 PDFs in a ZIP - 1MB apx)
So we have something like 40% observing the town speed limit at any given sample site.
But this doesn't inform us about who is causing accidents or how they are causing them. I strongly suspect that 80% of accidents are caused by 20% of drivers (both directly and indirectly). It follows that a fairly small population of drivers who have received a bad road safety message could have quite a marked effect on overall accidents.
It's proved very difficult to validate the 80/20 hypothesis without the resources to carry out a proper and impartial survey.
But whatever the right figures are we are quite vulnerable to the behaviour of relatively small groups of drivers.
andrew54 said:
Increasing emphasis on speed limit compliance has been forced on us by the wholesale flaunting of speed limits. Or am I wrong?
No, it's been forced on us by arrogant idiots who thought they knew better. And it's been driven by the availability of technology. Don't forget we had the safest roads in the World long before speed cameras.
Best Regards,
Paul Smith
Safe Speed
www.safespeed.org.uk
The fact that very few, if any, people observe the speed limit is what makes the present system of enforcement so ridiculous.
The motoring public is now split into two groups, namely convicted criminals and criminals that have not yet been caught. Is there anyone, anywhere, who can honestly say that they have never exceeded a limit even unintentionally? Does this really mean that we are all criminals? This attitude can only reduce the respect that the average person has for the law in general.
The motoring public is now split into two groups, namely convicted criminals and criminals that have not yet been caught. Is there anyone, anywhere, who can honestly say that they have never exceeded a limit even unintentionally? Does this really mean that we are all criminals? This attitude can only reduce the respect that the average person has for the law in general.
david_s said:Agree entirely.
The fact that very few, if any, people observe the speed limit is what makes the present system of enforcement so ridiculous.
david_s said:I agree, but what should society do about this?
This attitude can only reduce the respect that the average person has for the law in general.
Abolish limits?
Raise limits?
Increase enforcement?
This country, to some extent, has gone down the road of increasing enforcement, mainly with cameras. The problem is the way in which the public has reacted. Is this because cameras are so impersonal? Or because people these days don't like anything being enforced? They just want to do as they please.
I'm a bit different because I'm happy to drive within the limits. But I still don't want cameras, anyone can make a mistake. As yet there are no cameras near here.
I cannot agree more about the need for appropriate speeds and for the driver to be responsible for that speed. I like the sound of the Isle of Man solution.
Here in New South Wales the speed limits vary so frequently and the "Speed Kills" message is so prevalent, that many people just bimble along, concentrating on their speedos rather than the road.
Outside schools the limits are lower, but only at certain times, the message being that outside of those times, it is safer to drive quicker, and so the motorist is relieved of having to think for themselves. But children are often around these areas at all times of the day. Many messages warn of the financial penalty of speeding, with periods of double pentalties during busy times on the roads, eg, Christmas and Easter.
This doesn't really help develop a more-responsible, thinking driver.
Here in New South Wales the speed limits vary so frequently and the "Speed Kills" message is so prevalent, that many people just bimble along, concentrating on their speedos rather than the road.
Outside schools the limits are lower, but only at certain times, the message being that outside of those times, it is safer to drive quicker, and so the motorist is relieved of having to think for themselves. But children are often around these areas at all times of the day. Many messages warn of the financial penalty of speeding, with periods of double pentalties during busy times on the roads, eg, Christmas and Easter.
This doesn't really help develop a more-responsible, thinking driver.
What should society do about it?
Maybe concentrate on danger rather than speed and not try to equate the two in such a rigid manner.
The reason most people have no respect for speed limits is that the limits set are often patently absurd. People tend to exercise their judgement and drive at a speed that they feel is safe for the circumstances, with a few obvious exceptions. The problem arises when one is driving at a perfectly safe speed, exercising normal adult judgement, and a NIP arrives through the door a few days later. Due to dangerous driving? No. Due to causing an accident? No. Due to exceeding an arbitrary limit at the wrong time and in the wrong place? Yes.
If the government outlawed stepping on the cracks between paving stones there would be some people who would believe it justified. But it is not right that we should ALL be made criminals. I cannot believe that there is a single driver who has not broken a speed limit at one time or another.
Maybe concentrate on danger rather than speed and not try to equate the two in such a rigid manner.
The reason most people have no respect for speed limits is that the limits set are often patently absurd. People tend to exercise their judgement and drive at a speed that they feel is safe for the circumstances, with a few obvious exceptions. The problem arises when one is driving at a perfectly safe speed, exercising normal adult judgement, and a NIP arrives through the door a few days later. Due to dangerous driving? No. Due to causing an accident? No. Due to exceeding an arbitrary limit at the wrong time and in the wrong place? Yes.
If the government outlawed stepping on the cracks between paving stones there would be some people who would believe it justified. But it is not right that we should ALL be made criminals. I cannot believe that there is a single driver who has not broken a speed limit at one time or another.
safespeed said:
* Setting a suitable speed to negotiate a hazard.
What about the planner-placed 'hazards' of speed humps, traffic islands, slaloms and rumble strips? I'm sure these contribute to more accidents than they supposedly prevent. Why should 'slowing people down' be more important than making sure they don't have to swerve onto the other side of the road, or speed erratically up and down over humps, or travel over a surface which reduces your control of the car?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff