How much respect do you have for speed limits?
Discussion
Since Warwickshire introduced the 50 limits on most NSL's (apart from the Fosse which had more fatalities than any of the others) I have little respect for the limits (though as others have said I do temper it where necessary and try to drive to the conditions due to not being able to work without my licence). Most people I follow in the mornings or evening to and from work seem to ignore the 50's too. Though it only takes one to stick to them and we end up with a huge line of traffic with people making more risky overtakes to try to make some progress than when everyone is doing 60.
I will stick to 30 in built up areas and generally stick to 40's too if its obviously built up.
I'm sure that the people that set the limits don't seem to think about when the sat navs get reprogrammed and recalculate the "fastest route". That now seems to take the majority of traffic the back way in to our village via the single track road (set at NSL), bypassing a small hamlet which had speed calming measures added on the main road and means the increasing traffic now has to pass the primary school gates in the centre of the village, rather than being out on the main B road through the village further out.
The Southam to Rugby road had a few fatalities so the council in its infinite wisdom reduced the limit to 50mph along the whole road, but didn't think about increasing the signage on the corners or junction where these fatalities occurred. Oh no, just a blanket ban. And then they placed two speed cameras at either end of the straightest part of the road here: https://www.google.com/maps/@52.266225,-1.379804,3... Tell me that's not a money making scheme! If one of these cameras was around the next corner at the Stockton junction it would make a bit more sense but no.
I will stick to 30 in built up areas and generally stick to 40's too if its obviously built up.
I'm sure that the people that set the limits don't seem to think about when the sat navs get reprogrammed and recalculate the "fastest route". That now seems to take the majority of traffic the back way in to our village via the single track road (set at NSL), bypassing a small hamlet which had speed calming measures added on the main road and means the increasing traffic now has to pass the primary school gates in the centre of the village, rather than being out on the main B road through the village further out.
The Southam to Rugby road had a few fatalities so the council in its infinite wisdom reduced the limit to 50mph along the whole road, but didn't think about increasing the signage on the corners or junction where these fatalities occurred. Oh no, just a blanket ban. And then they placed two speed cameras at either end of the straightest part of the road here: https://www.google.com/maps/@52.266225,-1.379804,3... Tell me that's not a money making scheme! If one of these cameras was around the next corner at the Stockton junction it would make a bit more sense but no.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz said:
CBR JGWRR said:
speed limits are not the way for future reductions in KSIs.
Speed limits are not THE way, but they are A way. Speed limits do not only apply to safety. Lower speed limits can be used to reduce congestion and fuel use, lessen pollution and noise nuisance.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz said:
Speed limits are not THE way, but they are A way. Speed limits do not only apply to safety. Lower speed limits can be used to reduce congestion and fuel use, lessen pollution and noise nuisance.
A lot of speed limits actually increase pollution. My car is most efficient at 45-50mph where it will do nearly 45mpg at a constant cruise, at 20 or 30mph it is considerably less efficient. Obviously these thresholds vary from vehicle to vehicle but I bet there is barely a car on the road that is more fuel efficient at 20 or 30 than at 45-50mph. I'm afraid I think dicking around with speed limits to reduce pollution is a ridiculous idea, its effectiveness is highly dubious, there are better ways of achieving the same goal and it is a very slippery slope which should be kept well clear of. If they want to reduce pollution then they should focus on increasing road capacity, redesigning junctions and raising speed limits in order to reduce traffic congestion as much as possible as the amount of wasted fuel and pointless pollution due to traffic congestion must be immense.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz said:
Pan Pan said:
Going fast and wanting to go fast is within the very core of our being. It is the ones who want to go slow, who are the unnatural ones who are out of step with `almost' everyone else.
Desire to survive is the 'core of our being'. To society transport is first and foremost a tool, not a recreational activity.Until you understand those points, you will always be frustrated with the roads and laws regulating them.
As for your 'optimum vehicle speed' thing, I have no idea what you're on about?
If humans do not have a desire to go faster and further, why did they start jumping on the back of other animals such as horses? Why did they invent steam trains / bicycles / motor vehicles / aeroplanes / space shuttles / fair ground rides / even garden swings? this and more, to satisfy a humans inate desire for speed of any kind. The whole march of human existence has had travelling faster, and faster as one of its core activities, often even when it was / is at complete odds to the desire to survive, until you understand this point, you will always be at odds with most of humanity, and the inate desire of most to want to travel ever faster.
As for motor vehicles, You just don't seem to get it do you? there is only one safe speed for a vehicle in relation to other road users and that is zero mph. the moment it starts to move it represents a danger to others. so what speed is `safe'??. the answer? there is NO safe speed for a vehicle to travel at, if the aim is to eliminate road deaths and injuries caused by motorized vehicles.
Therefore as a society we deem that lower speeds are safer, but safe?? No such thing.
How would you like to be hit by a vehicle doing 20 mph? could you guarantee at even that tiny speed, you would not be seriously injured, or even killed? The answer is you cannot have any speed that is safe.
Therefore if as a society, we want to mix motorized vehicles of all kinds, with humans, the price society as whole pays for doing this, is a certain number of road deaths every single day. Tragic for those who are injured or killed, but inevitable when one mixes heavy faster moving hard objects with soft squashy slower moving ones in a crowded space.
So it seems we move speed limits down to a point, where using a motor vehicle in any kind of useful context becomes pointless, or we accept, that a certain number, either through lack of awareness, lack of skill, just plain bad luck, or a combination of all of these, meet their end on the countries roads.
believing you can mix moving motor vehicles and humans together in a crowded space and `not' have incidents is just pure delusion.
Why do these threads come down to it being all or nothing?
Speed limits, road and vehicle design, driver training and regulation and taxation are all tools to help improve safety on the roads. There is no reason all cannot be used together- it is not a case of one at he expense of the other.
Speed limits, road and vehicle design, driver training and regulation and taxation are all tools to help improve safety on the roads. There is no reason all cannot be used together- it is not a case of one at he expense of the other.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz said:
Why do these threads come down to it being all or nothing?
Speed limits, road and vehicle design, driver training and regulation and taxation are all tools to help improve safety on the roads. There is no reason all cannot be used together- it is not a case of one at he expense of the other.
The problem is that for the authorities, it the dangerous, naive, simplistic `speed kills' soundbite view that is taken (with some idiots actually believing that if they drive slowly they are `safe' drivers), virtually ignoring the other `tools' you mention that might be better used to increase road safety, and focusing on `driver' training is also a problem. there should be adequate road safety training for ALL road users not just drivers, but there is not, is there? Speed limits, road and vehicle design, driver training and regulation and taxation are all tools to help improve safety on the roads. There is no reason all cannot be used together- it is not a case of one at he expense of the other.
So if absolute safety is the aim, what speed is `safe' for a vehicle to travel at? In my view a `safe' speed does not exist.
Monkeylegend said:
CBR JGWRR said:
Thing is, road deaths aren't an issue when you look at the context they are in.
A bit insensitive don't you think. Tell that to the relatives, and all those involved in dealing with them.Pan Pan said:
So if absolute safety is the aim, what speed is `safe' for a vehicle to travel at? In my view a `safe' speed does not exist.
I don't believe 'absolute safety' is anybody's aim. It's a balance of convenience, cost and safety (in varying orders of importance, depending on who you ask).I've been wondering for a little while whether the stage is set for a particularly bold political party to try and raise (some) speed limits - in an attempt to restore public respect for speed limits. We've all seen it, it's become a chicken and egg scenario. You know the limits are lower than they should be, so you take them with a pinch of salt. Most of the time it's not an issue whatsoever and driving at the limit is just an exercise in frustration. Sometimes there's a hazard - which they tried to minimise the risk of by lowering the limit - but you're ignoring limits everywhere anyway, and so accidents still happen. So they reduce the limit still further, until it's ridiculously low for the stretch (though the risk has indeed been reduced) and you once again lose respect for limits. So they reduce further - and rinse and repeat. You can't trust them. Every 20mph village main road, every 30mph limit for half a mile before the first house on the edge of town, every 40mph dual carriageway and every 50mph limit for 14 miles of unattended roadworks - they all just erode public respect for the law. It's the Boy Who Cried Wolf.
What about if a party tried to tackle this by the horns. What about increasing limits on the clear, safe stretches - and more clearly marking hazards and maintaining lower speeds around the dangerous ones. It might take some months or a year, but eventually, you'll be getting where you want to go sooner, and when you see a 20 or 30 sign, you KNOW there's something coming up that demands your attention and extra caution. You can TRUST it.
Perfect example is the Southam road posted above - I drive there occasionally and it's ridiculous. That particular stretch is over half a mile long and dead straight with no houses, side roads, or even footpaths along its stretch. There's a dodgy junction around the next corner but there's literally not a single obstacle or hazard on the straight itself. In the last year or two, it's been reduced from NSL to 50mph and enforced with two (TWO!) cameras. Drivers are infuriated by the low limit when 70+ would be easily sustainable on that stretch with no extra risk, and only slow down for the cameras. What this means is that once they pass the last camera, they happily speed up again, free of the oppression and able to resume a speed safe for the conditions. Why not increase the limit on the straight road, and only reduce speed for a short stretch either side of the junction - clearly signposted with the speed AND the hazard?
What about if a party tried to tackle this by the horns. What about increasing limits on the clear, safe stretches - and more clearly marking hazards and maintaining lower speeds around the dangerous ones. It might take some months or a year, but eventually, you'll be getting where you want to go sooner, and when you see a 20 or 30 sign, you KNOW there's something coming up that demands your attention and extra caution. You can TRUST it.
Perfect example is the Southam road posted above - I drive there occasionally and it's ridiculous. That particular stretch is over half a mile long and dead straight with no houses, side roads, or even footpaths along its stretch. There's a dodgy junction around the next corner but there's literally not a single obstacle or hazard on the straight itself. In the last year or two, it's been reduced from NSL to 50mph and enforced with two (TWO!) cameras. Drivers are infuriated by the low limit when 70+ would be easily sustainable on that stretch with no extra risk, and only slow down for the cameras. What this means is that once they pass the last camera, they happily speed up again, free of the oppression and able to resume a speed safe for the conditions. Why not increase the limit on the straight road, and only reduce speed for a short stretch either side of the junction - clearly signposted with the speed AND the hazard?
This needs a poll. Something like:
How do you view speed limits?
1) Religiously observe them.
2) Obey them wherever possible.
3) Usually stick to them unless they seem overzealous.
4) Obey 30 limits - the others are open to negotiation.
5) I take them on board and make my own judgements.
6) Break them every day without a second thought.
7) There are speed limits?
Someone pop it up for me?
How do you view speed limits?
1) Religiously observe them.
2) Obey them wherever possible.
3) Usually stick to them unless they seem overzealous.
4) Obey 30 limits - the others are open to negotiation.
5) I take them on board and make my own judgements.
6) Break them every day without a second thought.
7) There are speed limits?
Someone pop it up for me?
Edited by macky17 on Tuesday 3rd June 14:54
macky17 said:
This needs a poll. Something like:
How do you view speed limits?
1) Religiously observe them.
2) Obey them wherever possible.
3) Usually stick to them unless they seem overzealous.
4) Obey 30 limits - the others are open to negotiation.
5) I take them on board and make my own judgements.
6) Break them every day without a second thought.
7) There are speed limits?
Someone pop it up for me?
Done - http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...How do you view speed limits?
1) Religiously observe them.
2) Obey them wherever possible.
3) Usually stick to them unless they seem overzealous.
4) Obey 30 limits - the others are open to negotiation.
5) I take them on board and make my own judgements.
6) Break them every day without a second thought.
7) There are speed limits?
Someone pop it up for me?
Edited by macky17 on Tuesday 3rd June 14:54
Had to alter some, they exceed the character limit as is.
Edited by CBR JGWRR on Tuesday 3rd June 18:44
CBR JGWRR said:
Monkeylegend said:
CBR JGWRR said:
Thing is, road deaths aren't an issue when you look at the context they are in.
A bit insensitive don't you think. Tell that to the relatives, and all those involved in dealing with them.Maybe it has something to do with lower speed limits.
Monkeylegend said:
Maybe it has something to do with lower speed limits.
Not really - rising fuel costs and the economy barely treading water have had more of an impact. Fact is a 125 learner bike can routinely be the fastest thing on the roads now because of how much the average car driver has slowed down.CBR JGWRR said:
Monkeylegend said:
Maybe it has something to do with lower speed limits.
Not really - rising fuel costs and the economy barely treading water have had more of an impact. Fact is a 125 learner bike can routinely be the fastest thing on the roads now because of how much the average car driver has slowed down.Edited by GetCarter on Tuesday 3rd June 20:31
Pan Pan said:
It seems the anti car fad is also being promoted by some teachers, in some schools, where they try to foist their green hugger anti car views onto the pupils.
Whilst at my Sisters place a little while back, my nieces and nephew, came home from school, full of the `cars are evil' junk that they appear to have been fed that day in class. Being a PHer I was intrigued to find out what they had been `taught' so asked who had given them this `lesson' and what had been said. They trotted out all the usual, cars are killing the planet, and we should be using public transport, not cars, cars should be banned etc etc. I then pointed out that they had been taken to school in a car. and that a friend of my sisters had picked them up in a car, and that at the recent half term they had gone on holiday in a car. and didn't seem to have a problem with cars then. to which one replied, well the cars are evil message must be correct, because it was given them by a teacher in school. I decided then that I wasn't going to get much further with the argument.
The fun part was after we had had dinner, one of my sisters daughters asked my sister if she would drive her over to her friends, on the other side of town!!!
I would like to see driving lessons as part of the school syllabus. It would teach them road safety skills that will also be relevant in cycling and crossing roads and so it would help keep them safer around roads before they even become old enough to drive on them. There are organisations such as this that can provide such training. Whilst at my Sisters place a little while back, my nieces and nephew, came home from school, full of the `cars are evil' junk that they appear to have been fed that day in class. Being a PHer I was intrigued to find out what they had been `taught' so asked who had given them this `lesson' and what had been said. They trotted out all the usual, cars are killing the planet, and we should be using public transport, not cars, cars should be banned etc etc. I then pointed out that they had been taken to school in a car. and that a friend of my sisters had picked them up in a car, and that at the recent half term they had gone on holiday in a car. and didn't seem to have a problem with cars then. to which one replied, well the cars are evil message must be correct, because it was given them by a teacher in school. I decided then that I wasn't going to get much further with the argument.
The fun part was after we had had dinner, one of my sisters daughters asked my sister if she would drive her over to her friends, on the other side of town!!!
https://www.youngdriver.eu/index.php/whyus/14
Once they turn 17, they can be taken out on the road. It'll teach them from a young age to enjoy driving safely and responsibly and it's as important a life skill as any other taught in schools for future employment prospects.
Speed allows us to go further and it saves time we can use to be more productive, make more money, enjoy ourselves more and contribute more to the economy. That's why there are proposals to allow HGVs to do 50mph on single carriageway roads. That's pointless in itself though if A-roads have 50mph limits and cameras meaning the HGVs are stuck in 45mph lines of cars.
Lowering limits and having ever present draconian enforcement of them may reduce severe accidents. Low speed accidents will generally hurt less than high speed accidents. If all we do is slow traffic down, which is basically all that's happening now, where do we stop? When we go back to walking pace behind a man with a red flag as we did a hundred years ago when people claimed cars were deadly liabilities? Speed can be safe with the right infrastructure, training and attitude. That's why planes and trains are generally safe. We'll need cars in our lives for a while yet, public transport couldn't cope with everyone suddenly using it tomorrow, and we need speed to make the most out of our lives.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz said:
Pan Pan said:
So if absolute safety is the aim, what speed is `safe' for a vehicle to travel at? In my view a `safe' speed does not exist.
I don't believe 'absolute safety' is anybody's aim. It's a balance of convenience, cost and safety (in varying orders of importance, depending on who you ask).the cynical answer is they are not really interested in proper roads safety / training for all, because providing this would cost `them' money.
By giving as many as possible, the ability to use a motorized vehicle (even those who are patently unsuited to using a motor vehicle of any kind) they increase their tax take from vehicle sales / fuel / insurance / VED / maintenance costs / speeding fines and other motoring penalties etc, all of which brings extra cash into government coffers (and of which, only a tiny proportion is spent back on the roads from which that cash comes from in the first place)
Of course if they prized people out of their cars and onto public transport, bicycles, even walking, they would just devise, a different tax system to recoup the revenue, they were taking off the motoring public. (remember the words of the tax man song: If you want to walk I`ll tax your feet, if you want to sit, I`ll tax your seat)
It seems we agree that achieving absolute safety in relation to mixing motorized vehicles with humans, is just not possible, but if we want to travel at the speeds that make using motorized vehicles a viable activity. lower speed limits than we have now is just not the answer.
A senior traffic police officer commented some years ago, saying that given the numbers of people and vehicles in the UK, we have already got balance between safety, and speed limits to about as good as it is ever going to get.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff