How much respect do you have for speed limits?

[Pan Pan]

Unfortunately, there are many, either weak minded, or with insufficient intelligence to have an objective view on the matter of vehicle speeds, who have swallowed the ridiculous politicians sound bite `speed kills' hook line and sinker.
Speed in itself does NOT kill. If it did, there would be billions of humans, who have travelled at speeds ranging from crawling across the living room floor, to moving at several thousand miles per hour, who would die every single day. therefore anyone who applies even a small amount of thought to the speed kills soundbite, would realize that it is in fact, a lie.
So we have politicians feeding us what most (hopefully) will recognize as a lie, (that some actually believe, and consequently believe that driving slow makes them safe, and a safe driver)
As long as politicians, and governments continue to focus on speed limits and lowering them as they are doing now. the REAL killer on the countries roads (poor road craft, and inadequate roads use training for ALL) will STILL be out there, looking for its next victim

[bennyboysvuk]

There have been a few KSIs down a local to me NSL limit road, but only as a result of people not driving to the conditions. i.e. for tight corners, they need to slow down.

As a result, the NSL has been replaced with a 30 limit, going to a 40mph limit for some of it. The limits are adhered to by some, which causes frustration in others who disregard the limit completely. So how much do I respect that limit? Well, I think the limit was set as a ridiculous knee-jerk reaction by someone who doesn't understand motoring.

[Pan Pan]

In some US state the speed limits were increased, and the number of road fatalities in those states went significantly downwards, not up.
As posted before road safety, is about so much more than low speed limits. Pity the authorities don't ever seem to understand this.

[Dannbodge]

Depends on where I am, who I'm with, what car I'm in and how I feel.

[surveyor]

P-Jay said:

To be frank my whole opinion was smashed to bits yesterday evening. I was driving home, thinking about cooking dinner, listening to the radio and probably half a dozen other things we going through my mind - I'd guess I was doing about 20mph because it was pretty busy - nose-to-tail on the other side coming away from the city, but nothing in front of me on mine - but I'd not long turned a junction and I was coming up to a zebra crossing - but I don't usually consider the actual limit unless theirs a camera or Police car about.

Anyway, I saw a flash of something out-of-place in the corner of my eye and covered the brake, the something was a tiny little girl of about 2 walking between the cars on the other side and she plonked herself on the road in front of me, I can't remember braking but my car felt like it was going to do an endo. I stalled and jumped out of the car to try to grab her but I must have scared her because she started running, thankfully a lady who'd seen what had happened on the other side was out like a flash with her arms out starched, the kid ran straight to her. Her panicked parents arrived on scene about 90 seconds later, crying their eyes out.

I haven't been able to sleep properly since and it was a 'good news' story really, I'd seen her in plenty of time, I never got that close, I had 10m to spare thanks to a combination of quick reaction from years of trying to kill myself on mountain bikes, ABS and massive modern brakes meant 'no harm done', but it's done a huge number on me, what if I'd been doing 30, even a bit more, it's quite a wide road, what if I'd been looking at the radio - I've got a stupid overly-complex 'driver interface' thing and sometimes I know I spend too much time fecking about with it, changing from MP3 to radio takes too long, I know I shouldn't but I do. Anyway, I don't think I'd ever be at fault - a tiny girl who didn't know any better got away from her folks somehow and ran into a busy road - everyone's worse nightmare - but how could I live with myself??

I can't say how speed limits play in all of this, I think this is probably just the first thread that sort of met my need to get it off my chest - but my stance was always "drive to the conditions" and of course that's still true, but in the lower speed roads, right-now today, I don't think you can use that as an excuse to exceed them, not when there's stupid people, drunk people, old people and kids all sharing them with you. No one is as good as they think they are behind the wheel.

Very similar thing happened to me a few days after my test passed. I was lucky in that I'd spotted footsteps under a van from a distance as a kid popped out as I was very close.

Am always very cautions around residential/housing estates.

[IvanSTi]

Pan Pan said:

If the powers that be focused more on PROPER/ professional roads use training, for ALL road users, they could cut fatalities at a stroke, but they don't, and therefore just take the easy, less effective, misguided option of focusing on speed limits.

This is the Key, teaching road users how to use the road correct.

As mentioned earlier in the thread, the number of people at my driver awareness class who didn't know basics, like how to recognise speed limits with no signs around and what solid white lines were, was scary. That was just in one class of around 25 people. I would say 85-90% didn't know what the speed limit was for a single carriageway or in urban areas.

Spatial awareness is another big thing too.

One thing that really bothers me is that someone can take their lessons and test in a stty little 1.0 Corsa whilst not being allowed on a Motorway, then moments later walk into a Ferrari showroom and buy a car and head straight for the A1, it's just not right.

At least with Bikes you are restricted for the first year or two to a bike with lower BHP....or at least that was the case when I looked into it a few years back. Should be the same with cars.

Everyone should have to have a POS car for the first 6 months, then at least it opens your eyes to the problems you can face.

[Art0ir]

deltashad said:

20s and 30s I try to stick to them, 40s and 50s I usually drive to the conditions and ignore the rules. Nsl I can be a hooligan, they tend to be my favourite roads. Motorways/dual carriageways I see as boring places so watch my fuel economy more than my speed.

All of this really.

[XJ Flyer]

Art0ir said:

deltashad said:

20s and 30s I try to stick to them, 40s and 50s I usually drive to the conditions and ignore the rules. Nsl I can be a hooligan, they tend to be my favourite roads. Motorways/dual carriageways I see as boring places so watch my fuel economy more than my speed.

All of this really.

That type of logic can be just as bad as the idea that speed is dangerous and everyone will be safe if they don't exceed the limit type bs.

IE by that logic it's ok to 'be a hooligan' on roads like this.

www.google.com/maps/@51.251271,-0.48404,3a,75y,180...

While being happy to 'save fuel' at the 50 mph limit on roads like this.It makes no sense.

www.google.com/maps/@51.252892,-0.484594,3a,75y,18...

[Blakewater]

Pan Pan said:

In some US state the speed limits were increased, and the number of road fatalities in those states went significantly downwards, not up.
As posted before road safety, is about so much more than low speed limits. Pity the authorities don't ever seem to understand this.

More recently, speed limits have been increased in Denmark and that's led to a reduction in fatalities on both single carriageway roads and motorways.

http://cars.aol.co.uk/2014/02/24/danish-road-exper...

[zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz]

Pan Pan said:

In some US state the speed limits were increased, and the number of road fatalities in those states went significantly downwards, not up.
As posted before road safety, is about so much more than low speed limits. Pity the authorities don't ever seem to understand this.

Without examining the details that connect the two and how they influence one another, the claim is meaningless.

For example, in the UK, the number of road deaths has halved since the large scale proliferation of automated speed enforcement. I have significant doubt you would credit speed enforcement with that drop.

[mwstewart]

XJ Flyer said:

That type of logic can be just as bad as the idea that speed is dangerous and everyone will be safe if they don't exceed the limit type bs.

IE by that logic it's ok to 'be a hooligan' on roads like this.

www.google.com/maps/@51.251271,-0.48404,3a,75y,180...

While being happy to 'save fuel' at the 50 mph limit on roads like this.It makes no sense.

www.google.com/maps/@51.252892,-0.484594,3a,75y,18...

He said 'can', not 'always'.

[XJ Flyer]

mwstewart said:

XJ Flyer said:

That type of logic can be just as bad as the idea that speed is dangerous and everyone will be safe if they don't exceed the limit type bs.

IE by that logic it's ok to 'be a hooligan' on roads like this.

www.google.com/maps/@51.251271,-0.48404,3a,75y,180...

While being happy to 'save fuel' at the 50 mph limit on roads like this.It makes no sense.

www.google.com/maps/@51.252892,-0.484594,3a,75y,18...

He said 'can', not 'always'.

So did I.However the general theme seems to be some strange idea that motorways and duals are/should be mostly boring places that are about going slow while single carriageway A and B etc roads are good for hooning.Which is mad logic when speed is/was the main reason for spending loads of money on wide multi lane relatively straight roads.

[Blakewater]

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz said:

Without examining the details that connect the two and how they influence one another, the claim is meaningless.

For example, in the UK, the number of road deaths has halved since the large scale proliferation of automated speed enforcement. I have significant doubt you would credit speed enforcement with that drop.

It depends what references you can provide to show a relationship between the two.

[Pan Pan]

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz said:

Pan Pan said:

In some US state the speed limits were increased, and the number of road fatalities in those states went significantly downwards, not up.
As posted before road safety, is about so much more than low speed limits. Pity the authorities don't ever seem to understand this.

Without examining the details that connect the two and how they influence one another, the claim is meaningless.

For example, in the UK, the number of road deaths has halved since the large scale proliferation of automated speed enforcement. I have significant doubt you would credit speed enforcement with that drop.

In Swindon, speed cameras were removed shut down, and the number of accidents and road deaths immediately went down. There is no evidence to link the drop in road deaths you mention, entirely to the introduction of speed cameras

[zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz]

Blakewater said:

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz said:

Without examining the details that connect the two and how they influence one another, the claim is meaningless.

For example, in the UK, the number of road deaths has halved since the large scale proliferation of automated speed enforcement. I have significant doubt you would credit speed enforcement with that drop.

It depends what references you can provide to show a relationship between the two.

Precisely. It's down a to a large combination of factors.

Claiming the raising of a limit is the sole factor in reducing KSIs is meaningless without looking at all the factors involved.

However, what you can't change is physics. In general, assuming the frequency of accidents and other variables remain the same, the lower the average speeds involved the lower the KSI rate will be. The more gentle the accident, the less likely you are to be hurt or killed. How stunningly controversial.

[Pan Pan]

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz said:

Blakewater said:

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz said:

Without examining the details that connect the two and how they influence one another, the claim is meaningless.

For example, in the UK, the number of road deaths has halved since the large scale proliferation of automated speed enforcement. I have significant doubt you would credit speed enforcement with that drop.

It depends what references you can provide to show a relationship between the two.

Precisely. It's down a to a large combination of factors.

Claiming the raising of a limit is the sole factor in reducing KSIs is meaningless without looking at all the factors involved.

However, what you can't change is physics. In general, assuming the frequency of accidents and other variables remain the same, the lower the average speeds involved the lower the KSI rate will be. The more gentle the accident, the less likely you are to be hurt or killed. How stunningly controversial.

This only really applies in vehicle to vehicle RTA`s. the moment a vehicle (even a bicycle) is travelling at more than 1 mph it represents a KSI danger to those not in /on vehicles.

[zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz]

Pan Pan said:

This only really applies in vehicle to vehicle RTA`s. the moment a vehicle (even a bicycle) is travelling at more than 1 mph it represents a KSI danger to those not in /on vehicles.

Of course it does! Pedestrians and cyclists benefit even more than motorists from reductions in vehicle speed. I'm glad we agree on that.

[TurboHatchback]

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz said:

Precisely. It's down a to a large combination of factors.

Claiming the raising of a limit is the sole factor in reducing KSIs is meaningless without looking at all the factors involved.

However, what you can't change is physics. In general, assuming the frequency of accidents and other variables remain the same, the lower the average speeds involved the lower the KSI rate will be. The more gentle the accident, the less likely you are to be hurt or killed. How stunningly controversial.

It is obviously true that if people kept piling into each other with the same frequency but lower speeds then the KSI rate would go down.

The important point here is that accidents are not caused by speed, they are caused by inattention and incompetence. Pointlessly reducing speed limits increases both as it removes any requirement to think from the driver. When I am in a pointlessly low speed limit on a huge wide open road or stuck in a queue of slow moving traffic then I find it impossible to maintain the same level of concentration and observation that I naturally maintain on a sensible road. There is then nothing to think about and my mind doesn't have an idle state so I drift off onto other stuff and not the task of driving. I'm sure most people are exactly the same.

Also if a driver has to think about every corner, every junction etc and pick the correct speeds and lines then it becomes second nature and they will think about their driving all the time. If a corner where some thought or slowing below the speed limit is required only occurs three times a year then drivers will never think about their driving as usually they don't have to and those three corners a year will come as a big shock and possibly an accident.

[Pan Pan]

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz said:

Pan Pan said:

This only really applies in vehicle to vehicle RTA`s. the moment a vehicle (even a bicycle) is travelling at more than 1 mph it represents a KSI danger to those not in /on vehicles.

Of course it does! Pedestrians and cyclists benefit even more than motorists from reductions in vehicle speed. I'm glad we agree on that.

As noted before. the governments own records cite speed as the causal factor in only a tiny fraction of the RTA`s`on UK roads. so reduction in vehicle speed will have minimal effect if any, on pedestrian and cyclist safety.

[0markymark0]

Pan Pan said:

As noted before. the governments own records cite speed as the causal factor in only a tiny fraction of the RTA`s`on UK roads. so reduction in vehicle speed will have minimal effect if any, on pedestrian and cyclist safety.

As a cyclist I believe the biggest threats to my safety are:

1. Failing to notice me (looking but not seeing)
2. Close passes (irrespective of speed) from cars.
3. Noticing me but not caring
4. Misjudging my speed