Discussion
Local A road, long straight, wide enough for 3 lanes, no entrances, now reduced from NSL to 50. Section with junctions now 40. Aaaaargh! It used to be frustrating sat behind trucks at 40 until an overtaking opportunity presented itself, now everyone will be condemned to travel at the slowest pace for no discernible benefit.
Is there somewhere online that I will be able to see the 'justification' for the limit reductions?
Is there somewhere online that I will be able to see the 'justification' for the limit reductions?
ks IMO. The blanket 50 limits are one of the few 'red circle' limits which I ignore. The thing with BRAKE is that it's just so arbitrary. Why 50mph? What relevance has that to anything? If, all those years ago, the men who make the decisions had picked 70mph as the rural NSL, today Brake would be campaigning for a reduction to 60mph.
They've just taken the random number on a stick and deducted a nice, round, 10.
Aside from being slower than 60mph, 50mph means absolutely nothing. It's not "safe", it's merely slower, which, in most if not all cases, will be less harmful in the event of an accident than 60, but it doesn't really mean anything. It's not the speed at which, say, 90% of accidents will involve no fatality or serious injury. It's not the speed at which, say, 90% of pedestrians would survive impact. It's not anything meaningful, it's just a number.
If they came to us and said, with some sort of hard evidence, that at 46.3mph, the aforementioned numbers would apply and that we could save, say, 50,000/year from being killed or seriously injured, then I'm sure it would have widespread support and, were it implemented, it would be respected by the majority of people for the majority of the time. But they don't, they come to the table armed with absolutely nothing except primary school mathematics regarding one arbitrary number being smaller than another arbitrary number by an arbitrary amount.
The present system of "drive at this speed because we tell you to" and "slow down to this speed because we say it's better" peddled by the government and Brake et al respectively don't wash because we grew out of that sort of thing when we were still a decade or more too young to drive.
I do understand that fixed limits are the only practical way to allow the punishment of the odd loony who can't pick a genuinely suitable speed, but this crazy 'take away the first number you though of' method of 'improving road safety' makes absolutely no sense and should be resisted strongly by anyone who demands that those who make the decisions which affect us all do so for good reason and having taken into account proper evidence, not merely a 'slower must be safer' mantra.
Simon.
They've just taken the random number on a stick and deducted a nice, round, 10.
Aside from being slower than 60mph, 50mph means absolutely nothing. It's not "safe", it's merely slower, which, in most if not all cases, will be less harmful in the event of an accident than 60, but it doesn't really mean anything. It's not the speed at which, say, 90% of accidents will involve no fatality or serious injury. It's not the speed at which, say, 90% of pedestrians would survive impact. It's not anything meaningful, it's just a number.
If they came to us and said, with some sort of hard evidence, that at 46.3mph, the aforementioned numbers would apply and that we could save, say, 50,000/year from being killed or seriously injured, then I'm sure it would have widespread support and, were it implemented, it would be respected by the majority of people for the majority of the time. But they don't, they come to the table armed with absolutely nothing except primary school mathematics regarding one arbitrary number being smaller than another arbitrary number by an arbitrary amount.
The present system of "drive at this speed because we tell you to" and "slow down to this speed because we say it's better" peddled by the government and Brake et al respectively don't wash because we grew out of that sort of thing when we were still a decade or more too young to drive.
I do understand that fixed limits are the only practical way to allow the punishment of the odd loony who can't pick a genuinely suitable speed, but this crazy 'take away the first number you though of' method of 'improving road safety' makes absolutely no sense and should be resisted strongly by anyone who demands that those who make the decisions which affect us all do so for good reason and having taken into account proper evidence, not merely a 'slower must be safer' mantra.
Simon.
Edited by ferrariF50lover on Friday 6th June 02:57 mostly because he has fat fingers and typing on his phone exposes this...
Edited by ferrariF50lover on Friday 6th June 02:59
speedking31 said:
Is there somewhere online that I will be able to see the 'justification' for the limit reductions?
The "justification", according to the many "Brake" ambassadors who now enrich SP&L, is that the reduction is "only 10mph" (with "only 10mph more" in a few places).And, er, that's it. That's all you need, apparently. Actually considering the road, or whether reducing speed limits improves road safety, is getting into "dissident" territory.
Just obey your masters, "slow down" and don't do any of that nasty thinking-for-yourself stuff.
ferrariF50lover said:
The thing with BRAKE is that it's just so arbitrary. Why 50mph? What relevance has that to anything? If, all those years ago, the men who make the decisions had picked 70mph as the rural NSL, today Brake would be campaigning for a reduction to 60mph.
They've just taken the random number on a stick and deducted a nice, round, 10.
Aside from being slower than 60mph, 50mph means absolutely nothing. It's not "safe", it's merely slower, which, in most if not all cases, will be less harmful in the event of an accident than 60, but it doesn't really mean anything. It's not the speed at which, say, 90% of accidents will involve no fatality or serious injury. It's not the speed at which, say, 90% of pedestrians would survive impact. It's not anything meaningful, it's just a number.
If they came to us and said, with some sort of hard evidence, that at 46.3mph, the aforementioned numbers would apply and that we could save, say, 50,000/year from being killed or seriously injured, then I'm sure it would have widespread support and, were it implemented, it would be respected by the majority of people for the majority of the time. But they don't, they come to the table armed with absolutely nothing except primary school mathematics regarding one arbitrary number being smaller than another arbitrary number by an arbitrary amount.
The present system of "drive at this speed because we tell you to" and "slow down to this speed because we say it's better" peddled by the government and Brake et al respectively don't wash because we grew out of that sort of thing when we were still a decade or more too young to drive.
I do understand that fixed limits are the only practical way to allow the punishment of the odd loony who can't pick a genuinely suitable speed, but this crazy 'take away the first number you though of' method of 'improving road safety' makes absolutely no sense and should be resisted strongly by anyone who demands that those who make the decisions which affect us all do so for good reason and having taken into account proper evidence, not merely a 'slower must be safer' mantra.
Good post, as already pointed out. It would be great if we could have a reasoned, non-evasive, detailed reply to such a post by one of the "speed kills" posters, but they always seem to "miss" threads like these, seemingly preferring to go for easier targets (and of course let's not forget the self-righteous gloating at those who have been caught allegedly speeding, and are looking for advice and maybe even solidarity on a motoring forum of all places).They've just taken the random number on a stick and deducted a nice, round, 10.
Aside from being slower than 60mph, 50mph means absolutely nothing. It's not "safe", it's merely slower, which, in most if not all cases, will be less harmful in the event of an accident than 60, but it doesn't really mean anything. It's not the speed at which, say, 90% of accidents will involve no fatality or serious injury. It's not the speed at which, say, 90% of pedestrians would survive impact. It's not anything meaningful, it's just a number.
If they came to us and said, with some sort of hard evidence, that at 46.3mph, the aforementioned numbers would apply and that we could save, say, 50,000/year from being killed or seriously injured, then I'm sure it would have widespread support and, were it implemented, it would be respected by the majority of people for the majority of the time. But they don't, they come to the table armed with absolutely nothing except primary school mathematics regarding one arbitrary number being smaller than another arbitrary number by an arbitrary amount.
The present system of "drive at this speed because we tell you to" and "slow down to this speed because we say it's better" peddled by the government and Brake et al respectively don't wash because we grew out of that sort of thing when we were still a decade or more too young to drive.
I do understand that fixed limits are the only practical way to allow the punishment of the odd loony who can't pick a genuinely suitable speed, but this crazy 'take away the first number you though of' method of 'improving road safety' makes absolutely no sense and should be resisted strongly by anyone who demands that those who make the decisions which affect us all do so for good reason and having taken into account proper evidence, not merely a 'slower must be safer' mantra.
I do have to wonder about the mentality of someone who is so desperate to strictly enforce a speed limit to the letter, and yet so reluctant to engage in meaningful discussion of why that limit has to be what it is.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff