Interesting article about speed limits - keep calm
Discussion
From today's East Anglian Daily Times
A GREEN Party councillor has hit out after his pleas for lower speed limits on rural Essex roads fell on deaf ears.
James Abbott, councillor for Bradwell, Silver End and Rivenhall ward, called for traffic to be slowed by 10mph to 50mph - but says he has been frustrated by the lack of support for his cause.
He claims that many rural roads in the Braintree area are too narrow in places for large vehicles to pass, and have blind bends and hidden entrances.
Mr Abbott said: “I cannot understand why the county council and the police persist in supporting the untenable situation where the speed limit on many rural roads in Braintree district and across Essex is 60mph.
“The county council and the police say the speed limit is not the main relevant factor and that drivers should drive according to the conditions.
“Why then have any speed limits at all? There surely have to be legally enforceable limits on all roads that are a safe maximum for that road.”
Mr Abbot said that many rural roads in north Essex were barely suitable for 50mph, let alone 60mph and that there were a significant number of drivers who frequently did not drive according to the conditions.
He added: “The police are rarely seen along many rural roads until there is a crash. They do a tremendous and difficult job dealing with crashes when they happen, but why don't they support lower speed limits and enforce them to help prevent the crashes in the first place?
“Essex has a worryingly high rate of road crashes and in many areas pedestrians and cyclists are being intimidated off rural roads by high volumes of speeding traffic.”
The idea has the backing of the Campaign for the Protection of Rural England's Essex branch, which aims to improve and protect the region's roads.
However, one of Essex Police's senior traffic officers said that it was not the responsibility of the police to dictate speed limits, and that lower limits had been introduced on certain stretches of road.
Inspector Mark Harman, from Essex Police road policing unit, said: “The national speed limit of 60mph on rural roads is set through legislation and any blanket lowering of the speed limit would be the responsibility of central government.
“In particular circumstances of rural roads with a significant casualty history the county council may impose lower limits.”
His stance was supported by the region's transport chief, Essex county councillor Rodney Bass, (Con) who said the campaign to reduce road casualties should be focused more on driver education than cutting speed limits.
Mr Bass, cabinet member for highways and transport, said: “Essex County Council doesn't believe in blanket speed limits. What is very important is that drivers drive appropriately to the conditions.
“We don't agree with him and we don't have any proposals for reducing speed limits. It would not be enforceable and people would disregard it, unless you have a major enforcement programme which would irritate drivers.”
A GREEN Party councillor has hit out after his pleas for lower speed limits on rural Essex roads fell on deaf ears.
James Abbott, councillor for Bradwell, Silver End and Rivenhall ward, called for traffic to be slowed by 10mph to 50mph - but says he has been frustrated by the lack of support for his cause.
He claims that many rural roads in the Braintree area are too narrow in places for large vehicles to pass, and have blind bends and hidden entrances.
Mr Abbott said: “I cannot understand why the county council and the police persist in supporting the untenable situation where the speed limit on many rural roads in Braintree district and across Essex is 60mph.
“The county council and the police say the speed limit is not the main relevant factor and that drivers should drive according to the conditions.
“Why then have any speed limits at all? There surely have to be legally enforceable limits on all roads that are a safe maximum for that road.”
Mr Abbot said that many rural roads in north Essex were barely suitable for 50mph, let alone 60mph and that there were a significant number of drivers who frequently did not drive according to the conditions.
He added: “The police are rarely seen along many rural roads until there is a crash. They do a tremendous and difficult job dealing with crashes when they happen, but why don't they support lower speed limits and enforce them to help prevent the crashes in the first place?
“Essex has a worryingly high rate of road crashes and in many areas pedestrians and cyclists are being intimidated off rural roads by high volumes of speeding traffic.”
The idea has the backing of the Campaign for the Protection of Rural England's Essex branch, which aims to improve and protect the region's roads.
However, one of Essex Police's senior traffic officers said that it was not the responsibility of the police to dictate speed limits, and that lower limits had been introduced on certain stretches of road.
Inspector Mark Harman, from Essex Police road policing unit, said: “The national speed limit of 60mph on rural roads is set through legislation and any blanket lowering of the speed limit would be the responsibility of central government.
“In particular circumstances of rural roads with a significant casualty history the county council may impose lower limits.”
His stance was supported by the region's transport chief, Essex county councillor Rodney Bass, (Con) who said the campaign to reduce road casualties should be focused more on driver education than cutting speed limits.
Mr Bass, cabinet member for highways and transport, said: “Essex County Council doesn't believe in blanket speed limits. What is very important is that drivers drive appropriately to the conditions.
“We don't agree with him and we don't have any proposals for reducing speed limits. It would not be enforceable and people would disregard it, unless you have a major enforcement programme which would irritate drivers.”
Just the usual case of case of the Green Party supporting the attitude of "the answer's a speed limit cut, what's the question?".
His stance was supported by the region's transport chief, Essex county councillor Rodney Bass, (Con) who said the campaign to reduce road casualties should be focused more on driver education than cutting speed limits.
Mr Bass, cabinet member for highways and transport, said: “Essex County Council doesn't believe in blanket speed limits. What is very important is that drivers drive appropriately to the conditions.
“We don't agree with him and we don't have any proposals for reducing speed limits. It would not be enforceable and people would disregard it, unless you have a major enforcement programme which would irritate drivers.
Good to know that there are still some sensible around who are involved in setting speed limits.
said:
His stance was supported by the region's transport chief, Essex county councillor Rodney Bass, (Con) who said the campaign to reduce road casualties should be focused more on driver education than cutting speed limits.
Mr Bass, cabinet member for highways and transport, said: “Essex County Council doesn't believe in blanket speed limits. What is very important is that drivers drive appropriately to the conditions.
“We don't agree with him and we don't have any proposals for reducing speed limits. It would not be enforceable and people would disregard it, unless you have a major enforcement programme which would irritate drivers.
Good to know that there are still some sensible around who are involved in setting speed limits.
If you wish to write to this chap, this is his email address:
cllr.jabbott@braintree.gov.uk
www.braintree.gov.uk/Braintree/councildemocracy/Councillors/AbbottJ.htm
cllr.jabbott@braintree.gov.uk
www.braintree.gov.uk/Braintree/councildemocracy/Councillors/AbbottJ.htm
Green Party joker said:
“The county council and the police say the speed limit is not the main relevant factor and that drivers should drive according to the conditions.
“Why then have any speed limits at all?”
I believe you've just answered your own question.
Edited by 900T-R on Wednesday 11th October 12:01
Typical "I am the world"-ism, really. He is unable to safely reach the speed limit or pass large vehicles safely. Therefore, the same must be true for sports cars or motorcycles.
What a great way of thinking!
I'm only 5'8" tall. I don't need the ceilings in the buildings I occupy to be any more than 6'. I think we should have a law about that. At the moment energy is being wasted to heat headroom I'm never going to use.
Also, I only need a one bedroom flat to live in. Obviously, anyone who has anything bigger is only showing off their wealth and wasting resources to heat and light it in the process. Let's have a punitive tax on any properties bigger than what I need. That will stop the fat cats with their "three bedroom family homes".
Etc.
.
.
.
Good response from council and police, though!
What a great way of thinking!
I'm only 5'8" tall. I don't need the ceilings in the buildings I occupy to be any more than 6'. I think we should have a law about that. At the moment energy is being wasted to heat headroom I'm never going to use.
Also, I only need a one bedroom flat to live in. Obviously, anyone who has anything bigger is only showing off their wealth and wasting resources to heat and light it in the process. Let's have a punitive tax on any properties bigger than what I need. That will stop the fat cats with their "three bedroom family homes".
Etc.
.
.
.
Good response from council and police, though!
my email said:
Dear Mr Abbott
I write regarding your recent request for a blanket speed limit reduction on your county's roads. Road safety activists have known for years that less than 5% of all RTAs have speed as a causing factor. Despite the best efforts of safety camera partnerships and charity organisations such as Brake and T2000, they have been unable to 'spin' the statistics any other way. They would say that speed is a contributory factor in many accidents - I would say that it is a contributory factor in all accidents, since static vehicles do not tend to collide with oneanother.
I would suggest that your time would be much better served by calling for increased traffic police patrols. Ask any traffic officer what is the most important part of his/her job, and they will state inappropriate speed (ie legal speeds but not suitable for the conditions) as more important than excessive speed - and even that will be lower on the list than drink driving, uninsured driving, dangerous driving - the list goes on.
Not only do traffic police make a huge contribution to overall road safety, but many of the people they stop are actively involved in other crimes. I remind you that the Yorkshire Ripper was caught by a traffic officer during the course of his duties.
Kind Regards
I write regarding your recent request for a blanket speed limit reduction on your county's roads. Road safety activists have known for years that less than 5% of all RTAs have speed as a causing factor. Despite the best efforts of safety camera partnerships and charity organisations such as Brake and T2000, they have been unable to 'spin' the statistics any other way. They would say that speed is a contributory factor in many accidents - I would say that it is a contributory factor in all accidents, since static vehicles do not tend to collide with oneanother.
I would suggest that your time would be much better served by calling for increased traffic police patrols. Ask any traffic officer what is the most important part of his/her job, and they will state inappropriate speed (ie legal speeds but not suitable for the conditions) as more important than excessive speed - and even that will be lower on the list than drink driving, uninsured driving, dangerous driving - the list goes on.
Not only do traffic police make a huge contribution to overall road safety, but many of the people they stop are actively involved in other crimes. I remind you that the Yorkshire Ripper was caught by a traffic officer during the course of his duties.
Kind Regards
I just sent him that.
the reply said:
Dear Mr Jeffs
Thank you for your e-mail.
With due respect, the newspapers and other media do not always paint an accurate picture of what is actually happening !
As well as calling for a reduction in speed limits on unclassified single carriageway rural roads, I have for years been lobbying the police - exactly as you suggest - for increased patrols
"I would suggest that your time would be much better served by calling for increased traffic police patrols."
I routinely do this - ie yesterday at a traffic meeting in Witham and recently by telephone to the head of traffic police in Bocking.
I fully accept that speed limits alone are not the answer. Lower speed limits PLUS enforcement PLUS much greater public information/advice are the answer.
Currently just about the only time traffic police are seen on rural roads is attending the tragic aftermath of yet another crash.There is very little pro-active enforcement other than at the very worst of the RTA locations.
I do not acccept your view that "Road safety activists have known for years that less than 5% of all RTAs have speed as a causing factor. Despite the best
efforts of safety camera partnerships and charity organisations such as Brake and T2000, they have been unable to 'spin' the statistics any other
way."
RTA stats are very misleading as the police are rarely interested and do not record, most non injury RTAs. I also know from (frequent) first hand experience locally (I attend as many RTAs in my ward as I can to try and find out the circumstances) that the police rarely attribute crashes to speed but seek other factors. For example, when a car, with no others involved, came off the road into a garden along a local road here, ending upside down and smoking having caused thousands of pounds worth of damage, the police refused to prosecute and said the road was "damp and slippery". It was not. The driver was driving at reckless speed along an unclassified rural road and lost control on a bend. I saw it happen.
Like statistics for crime, stats for RTAs depend on what you measure and the questions you ask. I believe we have to move away from the J. Clarkson view of the world that says its "a right" to use cars as pleasure devices and 2 fingers to those who criticise. Over 3,000 people a year die in the UK due to road crashes and hundreds of thousands are injured. Globally the figure is in the millions. The single largest cause of death and injury to school age children is not cancer or some other awful disease - its road crashes. Essex has a bad record on road crashes and increasingly cyclists and pedestrians in Essex are being hit, intimidating people from using more environmentally friendly forms of getting about.
I am not anti -car - I drive myself when I need to - but I find the death and injury toll on the roads as totally unacceptable and it is a sad reflection on society that it is tolerated and that the motor industry is allowed to contiue to sell cars on the basis of power and speed (ie aggression). If any other transport system or industry caused such a level of death and injury to people there would be uproar but society has become numb to the daily carnage on the roads.
Thanking you for your time,
James Abbott
Thank you for your e-mail.
With due respect, the newspapers and other media do not always paint an accurate picture of what is actually happening !
As well as calling for a reduction in speed limits on unclassified single carriageway rural roads, I have for years been lobbying the police - exactly as you suggest - for increased patrols
"I would suggest that your time would be much better served by calling for increased traffic police patrols."
I routinely do this - ie yesterday at a traffic meeting in Witham and recently by telephone to the head of traffic police in Bocking.
I fully accept that speed limits alone are not the answer. Lower speed limits PLUS enforcement PLUS much greater public information/advice are the answer.
Currently just about the only time traffic police are seen on rural roads is attending the tragic aftermath of yet another crash.There is very little pro-active enforcement other than at the very worst of the RTA locations.
I do not acccept your view that "Road safety activists have known for years that less than 5% of all RTAs have speed as a causing factor. Despite the best
efforts of safety camera partnerships and charity organisations such as Brake and T2000, they have been unable to 'spin' the statistics any other
way."
RTA stats are very misleading as the police are rarely interested and do not record, most non injury RTAs. I also know from (frequent) first hand experience locally (I attend as many RTAs in my ward as I can to try and find out the circumstances) that the police rarely attribute crashes to speed but seek other factors. For example, when a car, with no others involved, came off the road into a garden along a local road here, ending upside down and smoking having caused thousands of pounds worth of damage, the police refused to prosecute and said the road was "damp and slippery". It was not. The driver was driving at reckless speed along an unclassified rural road and lost control on a bend. I saw it happen.
Like statistics for crime, stats for RTAs depend on what you measure and the questions you ask. I believe we have to move away from the J. Clarkson view of the world that says its "a right" to use cars as pleasure devices and 2 fingers to those who criticise. Over 3,000 people a year die in the UK due to road crashes and hundreds of thousands are injured. Globally the figure is in the millions. The single largest cause of death and injury to school age children is not cancer or some other awful disease - its road crashes. Essex has a bad record on road crashes and increasingly cyclists and pedestrians in Essex are being hit, intimidating people from using more environmentally friendly forms of getting about.
I am not anti -car - I drive myself when I need to - but I find the death and injury toll on the roads as totally unacceptable and it is a sad reflection on society that it is tolerated and that the motor industry is allowed to contiue to sell cars on the basis of power and speed (ie aggression). If any other transport system or industry caused such a level of death and injury to people there would be uproar but society has become numb to the daily carnage on the roads.
Thanking you for your time,
James Abbott
Comments?
He needs to read the book by the road traffic engineer J Leeming. It ithe found that drivers tend to treat NSL roads more cautiously than posted limits. He found that there are cases were because a numbered limit is posted accidents increase because people BELIEVE it's safe to drive at that lower limit instead of to the conditions. As for combining lower limits with More Police patrols my previous comments also apply.
As for the police not turning up to an RTA where a vehicle ended up in a garden, that sounds very dodgy. I suspect that the RTA was recorded even if the Police refused to prosecute the driver. I would also state that conditions on a road can change very quickly. Leeming himself investigated an accident where the driver stated that the road was slippy and the police when they arrived stated that it wasn't. Only further investigation and witness statements from people at the sceene at the time of he accident revealed that the road could get very slippy when wet BUT dried to a grippy surface very quickly.
I would also reminfd him that Car's are much safer these days. The makers have installed more devices to save life and prevent accidents. In the meantime the performance levels achieved in the 80's are still the norm today as due to those safety features cars have become heavier. The improvements in power and performance merely making the modern car as quick as it was back then.
As for the police not turning up to an RTA where a vehicle ended up in a garden, that sounds very dodgy. I suspect that the RTA was recorded even if the Police refused to prosecute the driver. I would also state that conditions on a road can change very quickly. Leeming himself investigated an accident where the driver stated that the road was slippy and the police when they arrived stated that it wasn't. Only further investigation and witness statements from people at the sceene at the time of he accident revealed that the road could get very slippy when wet BUT dried to a grippy surface very quickly.
I would also reminfd him that Car's are much safer these days. The makers have installed more devices to save life and prevent accidents. In the meantime the performance levels achieved in the 80's are still the norm today as due to those safety features cars have become heavier. The improvements in power and performance merely making the modern car as quick as it was back then.
The comments he wrote could certainly be applied to Cheshire roads, and, I imagine, any rural county.
The problem you've got here is that we're judging everybody by our own standards. We know how to drive, and what speed is appropriate. Many other road users don't and they need the speed limit signs to tell them.
Interesting comment he makes about the crash - a guy was killed near me as he was pulling out of a side road. The other driver readily admitted doing 50 (NSL road) but said the car just 'appeared' in front of him. The Police said the *maximum* possible visiblity he had was 35Metres, but they couldn't prosecute because the driver was under the speed limit. People driving too fast (ie so they can't stop in the distance they can see) around bends here is an utter nightmare.
I do like hs comments about not having speed limits at all - then it would be up to drivers to decide, but they would risk prosecution for dangerous driving if their speed was inappropriate.
The problem you've got here is that we're judging everybody by our own standards. We know how to drive, and what speed is appropriate. Many other road users don't and they need the speed limit signs to tell them.
Interesting comment he makes about the crash - a guy was killed near me as he was pulling out of a side road. The other driver readily admitted doing 50 (NSL road) but said the car just 'appeared' in front of him. The Police said the *maximum* possible visiblity he had was 35Metres, but they couldn't prosecute because the driver was under the speed limit. People driving too fast (ie so they can't stop in the distance they can see) around bends here is an utter nightmare.
I do like hs comments about not having speed limits at all - then it would be up to drivers to decide, but they would risk prosecution for dangerous driving if their speed was inappropriate.
Edited by deva link on Wednesday 11th October 17:42
Cllr Abbott said:
From today's East Anglian Daily Times
A GREEN Party councillor has hit o<snippity>
“Why then have any speed limits at all? There surely have to be legally enforceable limits on all roads that are a safe maximum for that road.”
A GREEN Party councillor has hit o<snippity>
“Why then have any speed limits at all? There surely have to be legally enforceable limits on all roads that are a safe maximum for that road.”
They are a maximum limit in perfect conditions for that stretch of road (and indeed not all parts of it)...a MAXIMUM not a target ffs.
Cllr Abbott said:
Mr Abbot said that many rural roads in north Essex were barely suitable for 50mph, let alone 60mph and that there were a significant number of drivers who frequently did not drive according to the conditions.
He's probably right about SOME roads, but not all, and so long as he's campaigning about roads which *truly* need a reduction then that's fine...but I wonder if he is or not!?
Whilst there may be places on a NSL road where it isn't safe to go above 50, imposing a blanket 50 limit will likely include sections where it IS safe to go faster, the result being a cry wolf situation.
Better signposting of hazardous areas/bends, and reminders to drivers that speed limits are not targets would be much better ways to improve safety on NSL roads.
Better signposting of hazardous areas/bends, and reminders to drivers that speed limits are not targets would be much better ways to improve safety on NSL roads.
tigger1 said:
They are a maximum limit in perfect conditions for that stretch of road (and indeed not all parts of it)...a MAXIMUM not a target ffs.
Nope, limits are arbitrary numbers with little or no relation to what might be an appropriately low risk speed for the conditions pertaining at any given time or place.
Blanket limits are immoral, oppressive and liable to cause drivers to abrogate responsibility for their actions. The councillor is correct to question whether they serve any good purpose at all.
smeggy said:
cuneus said:
should read:
5% of all RTA's have speeding as a causing factor ?
5% of all RTA's have speeding as a causing factor ?
Not quite...
DfT RTA contributory report said:
Exceeding the speed limit was reported as a contributory factor in 5 per cent of all accidents.
Cause != contribute
It's still wrong though, sorry. The relationship between the actual speed, and the posted limit, is quite irrelevant.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
What concerns me is if there is a 50mph sign, morons will drive at 50mph, as they KNOW that driving within the speed limit = safe, driving above the speed limit = dangerous.
Ergo, accidents will increase.
At least with NSL many people (IME of the Brentwood area) will still drive at 50 anyways.
Ergo, accidents will increase.
At least with NSL many people (IME of the Brentwood area) will still drive at 50 anyways.
fluffnik said:
tigger1 said:
They are a maximum limit in perfect conditions for that stretch of road (and indeed not all parts of it)...a MAXIMUM not a target ffs.
Nope, limits are arbitrary numbers with little or no relation to what might be an appropriately low risk speed for the conditions pertaining at any given time or place.
Blanket limits are immoral, oppressive and liable to cause drivers to abrogate responsibility for their actions. The councillor is correct to question whether they serve any good purpose at all.
"Blanket limits are immoral"
We have a NSL - is that immoral? Would it be immoral to say that you can do what you like up to 150mph on a motorway?? Yes, I'd rather the chance to pick my speed - but we live in a country where a vast number of people are unable to do this, and for my safety and there's that means we require an absolute upper bound on some roads, if not all.
And I stand by my statement that the limit IS a maximum, whether it's arbitrary or not!
tigger1 said:
tigger1 said:
They are a maximum limit in perfect conditions for that stretch of road (and indeed not all parts of it)...a MAXIMUM not a target ffs.
And I stand by my statement that the limit IS a maximum, whether it's arbitrary or not!
If they are set too low they become a de facto target, whether you like it or not. Only if they are set at a speed higher than the speed you would choose yourself are they not a target.
I sent him this:
and received this:
Personally I can't see what he'd disagree with. I don't think he drives much, do you think?
my reply said:
Hi there, and thank you for the prompt reply.
I do not believe that lower speed limits result in safer roads. Existing speed limits are usually set at the 85th percentile - it is a formula that has worked very well for many decades. A blanket reduction in speed limits would drop the limits well below the 85th percentile for most roads, something which would have a negative effect on road safety.
My experience suggests that lately people treat speed limits as a target, and not a legal maximum. I would suggest that drivers tend to be more careful on NSL roads precisely because their is no roundel, and because they feel less safe than if there were one. This view appears to be backed up in a book by J Leeming (a road traffic engineer).
Unfortunately public information on road safety isn't really to be trusted with organisations like safety camera partnerships making spurious and unproveable claims, as they regularly do. These are bodies which are financed from the very tickets they help issue. Their jobs depend on catching people breaking the speed limit (with serious questions as to the reliability of their equipment - google LTI20-20 flaws), they have very little interest in road safety else they would spend their money on road engineering.
A reduction in speed limits will not educate anybody. It will frustrate and annoy competent drivers, and will encourage those drivers who pay no interest in road safety to believe that so long as they're "under the limit" they're driving safely. I have noted a marked increase in the number of people who will not allow safe overtaking - which is an extremely dangerous illegal practice. Good driving has very little to do with speed, and everything to do with proper observation and being able to safely stop in the distance one can see to be clear ahead.
I can't really comment on the cases you quote other than to suggest that the traffic officers have vastly more experience than yourself, and that I would take their view that speed was not the main contributor to the crash. I have worked alongside traffic police and found them to be professional and knowledgeable on the subject. If they said that speed was not a factor, I'd tend to agree with them, not having seen the crash site.
Can I respectfully suggest, if of course you have not already done so, that you undertake a driving course from the Institute of Advanced Motorists, or ROSPA? I have passed the IAM course and it is an eye-opener. It will certainly help you when debating road safety in future, and may help reduce your car insurance premiums
Finally, I see driving not as a necessity (even though it is for my job), but as a hobby. I love driving cars - I drive an automatic Mercedes now, but my previous car was a TVR Chimaera that could do 0-60 in 4.5 seconds. In almost 20 years of driving I have never once had my licence endorsed for any driving offence. And I do not believe in man made climate change, it is more faith than science - but thats another argument
Kind Regards
I do not believe that lower speed limits result in safer roads. Existing speed limits are usually set at the 85th percentile - it is a formula that has worked very well for many decades. A blanket reduction in speed limits would drop the limits well below the 85th percentile for most roads, something which would have a negative effect on road safety.
My experience suggests that lately people treat speed limits as a target, and not a legal maximum. I would suggest that drivers tend to be more careful on NSL roads precisely because their is no roundel, and because they feel less safe than if there were one. This view appears to be backed up in a book by J Leeming (a road traffic engineer).
Unfortunately public information on road safety isn't really to be trusted with organisations like safety camera partnerships making spurious and unproveable claims, as they regularly do. These are bodies which are financed from the very tickets they help issue. Their jobs depend on catching people breaking the speed limit (with serious questions as to the reliability of their equipment - google LTI20-20 flaws), they have very little interest in road safety else they would spend their money on road engineering.
A reduction in speed limits will not educate anybody. It will frustrate and annoy competent drivers, and will encourage those drivers who pay no interest in road safety to believe that so long as they're "under the limit" they're driving safely. I have noted a marked increase in the number of people who will not allow safe overtaking - which is an extremely dangerous illegal practice. Good driving has very little to do with speed, and everything to do with proper observation and being able to safely stop in the distance one can see to be clear ahead.
I can't really comment on the cases you quote other than to suggest that the traffic officers have vastly more experience than yourself, and that I would take their view that speed was not the main contributor to the crash. I have worked alongside traffic police and found them to be professional and knowledgeable on the subject. If they said that speed was not a factor, I'd tend to agree with them, not having seen the crash site.
Can I respectfully suggest, if of course you have not already done so, that you undertake a driving course from the Institute of Advanced Motorists, or ROSPA? I have passed the IAM course and it is an eye-opener. It will certainly help you when debating road safety in future, and may help reduce your car insurance premiums
Finally, I see driving not as a necessity (even though it is for my job), but as a hobby. I love driving cars - I drive an automatic Mercedes now, but my previous car was a TVR Chimaera that could do 0-60 in 4.5 seconds. In almost 20 years of driving I have never once had my licence endorsed for any driving offence. And I do not believe in man made climate change, it is more faith than science - but thats another argument
Kind Regards
and received this:
his reply said:
As I disagree with every word of your e-mail I think we will have to leave it at that ! As a science graduate I find it incredible that you believe that climate change is a matter of faith over science. So it looks like we are poles apart. But thanks for contacting me anyway
Yours
James Abbott
Yours
James Abbott
Personally I can't see what he'd disagree with. I don't think he drives much, do you think?
Parrot of Doom said:
I sent him this:
and received this:
Personally I can't see what he'd disagree with. I don't think he drives much, do you think?
my reply said:
Hi there, and thank you for the prompt reply.
I do not believe that lower speed limits result in safer roads. Existing speed limits are usually set at the 85th percentile - it is a formula that has worked very well for many decades. A blanket reduction in speed limits would drop the limits well below the 85th percentile for most roads, something which would have a negative effect on road safety.
My experience suggests that lately people treat speed limits as a target, and not a legal maximum. I would suggest that drivers tend to be more careful on NSL roads precisely because their is no roundel, and because they feel less safe than if there were one. This view appears to be backed up in a book by J Leeming (a road traffic engineer).
Unfortunately public information on road safety isn't really to be trusted with organisations like safety camera partnerships making spurious and unproveable claims, as they regularly do. These are bodies which are financed from the very tickets they help issue. Their jobs depend on catching people breaking the speed limit (with serious questions as to the reliability of their equipment - google LTI20-20 flaws), they have very little interest in road safety else they would spend their money on road engineering.
A reduction in speed limits will not educate anybody. It will frustrate and annoy competent drivers, and will encourage those drivers who pay no interest in road safety to believe that so long as they're "under the limit" they're driving safely. I have noted a marked increase in the number of people who will not allow safe overtaking - which is an extremely dangerous illegal practice. Good driving has very little to do with speed, and everything to do with proper observation and being able to safely stop in the distance one can see to be clear ahead.
I can't really comment on the cases you quote other than to suggest that the traffic officers have vastly more experience than yourself, and that I would take their view that speed was not the main contributor to the crash. I have worked alongside traffic police and found them to be professional and knowledgeable on the subject. If they said that speed was not a factor, I'd tend to agree with them, not having seen the crash site.
Can I respectfully suggest, if of course you have not already done so, that you undertake a driving course from the Institute of Advanced Motorists, or ROSPA? I have passed the IAM course and it is an eye-opener. It will certainly help you when debating road safety in future, and may help reduce your car insurance premiums
Finally, I see driving not as a necessity (even though it is for my job), but as a hobby. I love driving cars - I drive an automatic Mercedes now, but my previous car was a TVR Chimaera that could do 0-60 in 4.5 seconds. In almost 20 years of driving I have never once had my licence endorsed for any driving offence. And I do not believe in man made climate change, it is more faith than science - but thats another argument
Kind Regards
I do not believe that lower speed limits result in safer roads. Existing speed limits are usually set at the 85th percentile - it is a formula that has worked very well for many decades. A blanket reduction in speed limits would drop the limits well below the 85th percentile for most roads, something which would have a negative effect on road safety.
My experience suggests that lately people treat speed limits as a target, and not a legal maximum. I would suggest that drivers tend to be more careful on NSL roads precisely because their is no roundel, and because they feel less safe than if there were one. This view appears to be backed up in a book by J Leeming (a road traffic engineer).
Unfortunately public information on road safety isn't really to be trusted with organisations like safety camera partnerships making spurious and unproveable claims, as they regularly do. These are bodies which are financed from the very tickets they help issue. Their jobs depend on catching people breaking the speed limit (with serious questions as to the reliability of their equipment - google LTI20-20 flaws), they have very little interest in road safety else they would spend their money on road engineering.
A reduction in speed limits will not educate anybody. It will frustrate and annoy competent drivers, and will encourage those drivers who pay no interest in road safety to believe that so long as they're "under the limit" they're driving safely. I have noted a marked increase in the number of people who will not allow safe overtaking - which is an extremely dangerous illegal practice. Good driving has very little to do with speed, and everything to do with proper observation and being able to safely stop in the distance one can see to be clear ahead.
I can't really comment on the cases you quote other than to suggest that the traffic officers have vastly more experience than yourself, and that I would take their view that speed was not the main contributor to the crash. I have worked alongside traffic police and found them to be professional and knowledgeable on the subject. If they said that speed was not a factor, I'd tend to agree with them, not having seen the crash site.
Can I respectfully suggest, if of course you have not already done so, that you undertake a driving course from the Institute of Advanced Motorists, or ROSPA? I have passed the IAM course and it is an eye-opener. It will certainly help you when debating road safety in future, and may help reduce your car insurance premiums
Finally, I see driving not as a necessity (even though it is for my job), but as a hobby. I love driving cars - I drive an automatic Mercedes now, but my previous car was a TVR Chimaera that could do 0-60 in 4.5 seconds. In almost 20 years of driving I have never once had my licence endorsed for any driving offence. And I do not believe in man made climate change, it is more faith than science - but thats another argument
Kind Regards
and received this:
his reply said:
As I disagree with every word of your e-mail I think we will have to leave it at that ! As a science graduate I find it incredible that you believe that climate change is a matter of faith over science. So it looks like we are poles apart. But thanks for contacting me anyway
Yours
James Abbott
Yours
James Abbott
Personally I can't see what he'd disagree with. I don't think he drives much, do you think?
I love the way greenies conveniently drop or ignore the "man-made" bit when talking about climate change.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff