How much respect do you have for speed limits?

[Pixelpeep]

stupid as it sounds, since witnessing the car in front of me not even notice running over an animal, me getting out and having to pick up a barely alive kitten and move it out of the path of mindless and blind road users i crawl around side streets with parked cars.

I never used to go particularly fast down them anyway but that single incident has permanently affected me

Motorways are a different matter, 60-70 if on an MPG run, 70-99 normally (if the conditions allow) and sometimes more for brief periods if mood / conditions allow.

[Blakewater]

The father of the police dog handler who lives up the road from me ran into my cat. I saw him do it as he was gawping off into the sky as he was driving.

[XJ Flyer]

paranoid airbag said:

XJ Flyer said:

So it's ok to potentially kill people on the railways.

Yes, if there is a net saving of lives. The best guess we have, based on how many deaths we have now, which is a fairly good basis with no mechanisms or evidence from other countries suggesting a drastic change is likely, is that there would be a net saving.

Is that really hard to comprehend? Or are you, as I suspect, being thick on purpose.

No,just as I said,I'd suggest that it's just double standards being applied to keep the big business rail transport interests happy.

All based on dodgy calculation methods,of the statistics related to road traffic casualties compared to other modes of transport.While applying a definition,of safety along the lines of prevention of accidents being more important than trying to reduce the severity of them by reducing speeds 'if' they happen,in the case of rail and vice versa in the case of road traffic.As for me being convinced by your ideas to leave the car and go by fast train instead no thanks when even 50 mph is probably more than fast enough for safety by rail.

[XJ Flyer]

Pixelpeep said:

stupid as it sounds, since witnessing the car in front of me not even notice running over an animal, me getting out and having to pick up a barely alive kitten and move it out of the path of mindless and blind road users i crawl around side streets with parked cars.

I never used to go particularly fast down them anyway but that single incident has permanently affected me

Motorways are a different matter, 60-70 if on an MPG run, 70-99 normally (if the conditions allow) and sometimes more for brief periods if mood / conditions allow.

Which is yet more proof that speed limits are generally bullst being that the 30 mph limit is too high in many cases.In just the same way that the 70 mph motorway limit is a joke in many cases.Having said that the usual result of trying to solve the problem of suicidal humans or cats with no road sense by slowing down the traffic is that they just act even more stupidly.

[Pan Pan]

Mave said:

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.

Even if reduced speed doesn't change the number of RTAs, surely it changes the severity?

No, it only reduces the energy involved in a given incident, a moving vehicle of any kind, even a bicycle
has the potential to kill, or injure, even at speeds as low as 1 mph. Speed is the causal factor in only a tiny fraction of the RTA`s on UK roads.
The problem is the authorities place blind faith, and useless undue emphasis on speed limits, in the blind, naive view, that somehow this increases safety.
Meanwhile the REAL killer on UK roads (Poor road craft, and lack of training for ALL, road users, not just drivers, in what is an incredibly important daily activity) is STILL out there looking for its next victim.

[bigfatnick]

I'm a lorry driver. I work for one of the old school companies that dont have trackers, and dont give you a bking if they see you've been speeding on your tachograph. this week i started on sunday, drove up to my legal limit every day and got home last night with 4 minutes driving time to spare. had i done 40mph on every single carriageway road (with mile long ques behind me) and 50 on every dual carriageway, i wouldnt be home until half way through my saturday. more wage yes, but less weekend and therefore quality of life.

my car has 400bhp. so, the less said about that the better!

To the original point. i have a healthy respect for my licence, and safety - wouldnt speed in a built up area, but i think an element of self policing is important, reading the road ahead, being aware of what is lurking around the next blind corner, what that 80 year old woman or chavwoman behemoth with 7 unbelted kids is going to do. my sports coupe is going to be far safer on an A road at 70 than a reliant robin at 35.

Edited by bigfatnick on Friday 6th June 08:11

[Pan Pan]

0markymark0 said:

Pan Pan said:

1. Cyclist not wearing hi viz clothing or using lights in low light conditions.
2. Motorist makes to pass cyclist, but is presented with a vehicle coming the other way which was not visible at the start of the overtake
3. This `could' be the case, but could also be as items 1 and 2 above.
4. This could be the case, but may not helped by cyclists who want to be invisible on the road.

Interetsting.

1. I always wear hiviz and have lights on at night and most of time during day too. With regards to hiviz, do you struggle to see dark coloured cars? Why are bikes with lights but no hi viz any different?
2. So, you perform an overtake without being sure you can pass before an oncoming vehicle pushes you back? Is that just for cyclists or with cars too?
4. You can misjudge the speed of something invisible? That's quite a skill...

Edited by 0markymark0 on Thursday 5th June 14:28

Who said anything about struggling to see dark coloured cars? If I was given a pound for every time I see a cyclist riding at night, without lights, or any kind of high viz clothing I could give up work.
You might wear hi viz clothing, and use lights, but it seems not everyone else does, and for a soft slow moving squashy thing, that wants to mix it, in the same space as hard heavy fast moving things, one would think making sure one is seen would be high up on the list of priorities. wouldn't you?.
I drive for a living and do up to 42000 miles a year, Given this, I accept there will be situations which are not always ideal, and yes, there have been situations where I have made mistakes because (unlike some it seems) I know I am not perfect, and carried have out an inappropriate maneuver, as I am sure you have (law of averages) But that is the nature of using UK roads. Or do you believe that in a country of 60 plus million, we can achieve perfection, and a zero RTA figure.
The word invisible means it cannot be seen, how can someone misjudge the speed of something that cannot be seen? But those who choose to make themselves hard to see, and in some instances virtually invisible
can hardly complain when they get flattened, by those who just did not see them?

[0markymark0]

Pan Pan said:

Who said anything about struggling to see dark coloured cars? If I was given a pound for every time I see a cyclist riding at night, without lights, or any kind of high viz clothing I could give up work.
You might wear hi viz clothing, and use lights, but it seems not everyone else does, and for a soft slow moving squashy thing, that wants to mix it, in the same space as hard heavy fast moving things, one would think making sure one is seen would be high up on the list of priorities. wouldn't you?.
I drive for a living and do up to 42000 miles a year, Given this, I accept there will be situations which are not always ideal, and yes, there have been situations where I have made mistakes because (unlike some it seems) I know I am not perfect, and carried have out an inappropriate maneuver, as I am sure you have (law of averages) But that is the nature of using UK roads. Or do you believe that in a country of 60 plus million, we can achieve perfection, and a zero RTA figure.
The word invisible means it cannot be seen, how can someone misjudge the speed of something that cannot be seen? But those who choose to make themselves hard to see, and in some instances virtually invisible
can hardly complain when they get flattened, by those who just did not see them?

So these cyclists that you can't see, you see them all the time?

Hi viz is contradictory. I fully agree cyclists should have lights on, it's sensible and the law. Hi viz is odd. You can see dark cars. You can see motorbikes, yet for some reason a cyclist with lights on is invisible withut hiviz? What's so special about a cyclist that it needs hiviz whereas a motorbike or car does not? Again, I agree about lights, but a cyclist with hiviz & lights is no more visible than a cyclist with lights and no hiviz. If you think otherwise, then it must also be the case for motorbikes and for dark cars.

I may be fussing but it makes no sense and the worrying trend is many drivers claims, or well, I knocked him off but he wasn't wearing hiviz. Would the same defence be used for a motorbike? If not, why not?

I'm glad we agree though that close passes are either stupid tts who drive too close or are stupid tts that perform an overtake without seeing its clear then rather than have a prang, push towards the vulnerable cylist who has done nothing wrong and threaten their safety.

I am not after 0 RTA but would expect that if someone does either of the 2 things above they should be punished in law; then people would think twice before not caring about cyclists and pedestrians as they MUST GET IN FRONT

Edited by 0markymark0 on Friday 6th June 09:16

[Pan Pan]

0markymark0 said:

Pan Pan said:

Who said anything about struggling to see dark coloured cars? If I was given a pound for every time I see a cyclist riding at night, without lights, or any kind of high viz clothing I could give up work.
You might wear hi viz clothing, and use lights, but it seems not everyone else does, and for a soft slow moving squashy thing, that wants to mix it, in the same space as hard heavy fast moving things, one would think making sure one is seen would be high up on the list of priorities. wouldn't you?.
I drive for a living and do up to 42000 miles a year, Given this, I accept there will be situations which are not always ideal, and yes, there have been situations where I have made mistakes because (unlike some it seems) I know I am not perfect, and carried have out an inappropriate maneuver, as I am sure you have (law of averages) But that is the nature of using UK roads. Or do you believe that in a country of 60 plus million, we can achieve perfection, and a zero RTA figure.
The word invisible means it cannot be seen, how can someone misjudge the speed of something that cannot be seen? But those who choose to make themselves hard to see, and in some instances virtually invisible
can hardly complain when they get flattened, by those who just did not see them?

So these cyclists that you can't see, you see them all the time?

Hi viz is contradictory. I fully agree cyclists should have lights on, it's sensible and the law. Hi viz is odd. You can see dark cars. You can see motorbikes, yet for some reason a cyclist with lights on is invisible withut hiviz? What's so special about a cyclist that it needs hiviz whereas a motorbike or car does not? Again, I agree about lights, but a cyclist with hiviz & lights is no more visible than a cyclist with lights and no hiviz. If you think otherwise, then it must also be the case for motorbikes and for dark cars.

I may be fussing but it makes no sense and the worrying trend is many drivers claims, or well, I knocked him off but he wasn't wearing hiviz. Would the same defence be used for a motorbike? If not, why not?

I'm glad we agree though that close passes are either stupid tts who drive too close or are stupid tts that perform an overtake without seeing its clear then rather than have a prang, push towards the vulnerable cylist who has done nothing wrong and threaten their safety.

I am not after 0 RTA but would expect that if someone does either of the 2 things above they should be punished in law; then people would think twice before not caring about cyclists and pedestrians as they MUST GET IN FRONT

Edited by 0markymark0 on Friday 6th June 09:16

As you may be aware not all road users obey limits. I have been in situations where the safe wide overtake of a cyclist, in the distance which can be seen, and at the prevailing speed limit is entirely possible, only to have the overtake compromised by a vehicle coming in the other direction at much higher than the prevailing speed limit. (If one does 45000 miles a year this can happen occasionally)
Of course the driver exceeding the limit by a `large' margin would be at fault, but knowing who is to blame doesn't help me, or the cyclist in that situation, in fact if an accident did occur, the cyclist is as likely to be caught by it as anyone else. One cannot live in a world where everything is perfect
the world does not work that way. so from time to time situations like this occur. Not good, but simply the reality.

[0markymark0]

Interesting. So we get the situation of 2 cars and a cyclist. A cyclist is going along doing everything correctly. A behind car misjudges the illegal speed of an oncoming car and overtakes the cyclist. The car overtaking either

1. Hits the oncoming car with all its airbags and crumplezones.
2. Hits the cyclist who has done nothing wrong and may or may not be barely protected with a bit of polystyrene on their head and is the most vulnerable in the scenario.

Great, thanks.

[spikey78]

3) Brakes? (the car or the bike-regardless of who's in the right or wrong no-one wants an accident)

Jesus christ MarkyMark you really do think it's cyclists against the world don't you? Or should I say the world against cyclists?

[Fastdruid]

0markymark0 said:

So these cyclists that you can't see, you see them all the time?

Stop being deliberately obtuse.

The cyclists that you can't see until the last minute and so that 'last minute' may be too late.

I was once nearly crashed into while walking along a pitch black lane by a cyclist wearing black with no lights on! Does that mean because I saw him at <1m away that I can't count him as a cyclist I didn't see? Of course it doesn't.

[Mave]

Pan Pan said:

Mave said:

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.

Even if reduced speed doesn't change the number of RTAs, surely it changes the severity?

No, it only reduces the energy involved in a given incident, a moving vehicle of any kind, even a bicycle
has the potential to kill, or injure, even at speeds as low as 1 mph.

But a moving vehicle at higher speed has more potential to kill than one at lower speed. So if there is an accident, surely if it is a low speed it will be a less severe accident that one at high speed?

[Mave]

Pan Pan said:

As you may be aware not all road users obey limits. I have been in situations where the safe wide overtake of a cyclist, in the distance which can be seen, and at the prevailing speed limit is entirely possible, only to have the overtake compromised by a vehicle coming in the other direction at much higher than the prevailing speed limit. (If one does 45000 miles a year this can happen occasionally)
Of course the driver exceeding the limit by a `large' margin would be at fault,

I'm not sure I agree that the speeding driver would be totally at fault in this situation unless they were seriously speeding; maybe 30mph over the limit. Its also interesting that in your earlier posts you suggested that speed is not causal in RTAs, and yet the defence you have given for getting into the situation of an aborted overtake is the other driver speeding...

Pan Pan said:

but knowing who is to blame doesn't help me, or the cyclist in that situation, in fact if an accident did occur, the cyclist is as likely to be caught by it as anyone else. One cannot live in a world where everything is perfect
the world does not work that way. so from time to time situations like this occur. Not good, but simply the reality.

The reality is that people overtake bikes with far less margin than they would when overtaking a car; simply because there is less risk to the motorist. There's always the bail out option to avoid a head on by driving the cyclist off the road which you don't have when overtaking a car but hey, life's like that huh?

[Pan Pan]

Mave said:

Pan Pan said:

Mave said:

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.

Even if reduced speed doesn't change the number of RTAs, surely it changes the severity?

No, it only reduces the energy involved in a given incident, a moving vehicle of any kind, even a bicycle
has the potential to kill, or injure, even at speeds as low as 1 mph.

But a moving vehicle at higher speed has more potential to kill than one at lower speed. So if there is an accident, surely if it is a low speed it will be a less severe accident that one at high speed?

If it is a low speed imposed to maker accidents less severe, what should that low speed be?? What speed does a vehicle have to move at to make it safe? My answer would be zero to possibly 1 to 2mph.
What is the lowest speed that would still make the use of vehicles a viable activity? what is the speed differential between one which makes vehicles `safe' and one which makes the use of vehicles a viable
activity?
In a country of 60 plus million, which chooses to mix slow moving squashy things, with fast moving hard things in the same cramped, crowded space we know as roads, then there must always, always be situations where the two come into contact with each other, every single day.
At the speeds we deem `normal' for both groups, the slow moving soft squashy things (whether inside or outside the fast moving hard things) will always come of worst. Reducing speed limits lower than they are now, will have little, or no effect on this, unless vehicle speeds are brought down so low, there would be no longer be any point in having, or using them. Perhaps that is what the anti speed, anti car, green huggers want all along?

[sasha320]

Speed limits are not only used for 'safety' but also used in many places to manage the relationship between speed and flow of traffic.

Some of the lower speed limits on busy A roads, complex junctions and motorways are there to improve the flow of traffic. You will cover distance quicker and more vehicles will pass a certain distance when travelling at a constant 50mph along a congested motorway e,g., the M25 in busy places, than lurching from 70mph to stop multiple times...

[Pan Pan]

sasha320 said:

Speed limits are not only used for 'safety' but also used in many places to manage the relationship between speed and flow of traffic.

Some of the lower speed limits on busy A roads, complex junctions and motorways are there to improve the flow of traffic. You will cover distance quicker and more vehicles will pass a certain distance when travelling at a constant 50mph along a congested motorway e,g., the M25 in busy places, than lurching from 70mph to stop multiple times...

Dsspite this having been introduced some time ago, I don't know if it actually works.
All that `seems' to happen when the variable speed limit is switched on during the rush hour, is that the traffic slows to a crawl. Of course it could be even worse without them, but I don't have any way of determining if it makes progress better or worse.

[Mave]

Pan Pan said:

Mave said:

Pan Pan said:

Mave said:

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.

Even if reduced speed doesn't change the number of RTAs, surely it changes the severity?

No, it only reduces the energy involved in a given incident, a moving vehicle of any kind, even a bicycle
has the potential to kill, or injure, even at speeds as low as 1 mph.

But a moving vehicle at higher speed has more potential to kill than one at lower speed. So if there is an accident, surely if it is a low speed it will be a less severe accident that one at high speed?

If it is a low speed imposed to maker accidents less severe, what should that low speed be?? What speed does a vehicle have to move at to make it safe? My answer would be zero to possibly 1 to 2mph.

I wasn't advocating any particular threshold. Simply disagreeing with your view that speed has no relevance to the severity of an impact.

Mave said:

At the speeds we deem `normal' for both groups, the slow moving soft squashy things (whether inside or outside the fast moving hard things) will always come of worst. Reducing speed limits lower than they are now, will have little, or no effect on this, unless vehicle speeds are brought down so low, there would be no longer be any point in having, or using them.

The difference in injury to the slow squashy things if hit at 20, 30, or 40mph is markedly different. The difference in injury to the fast squashy things inside the car is markedly different if crashing at 50, 60, or 70mph.

[Prawo Jazdy]

sasha320 said:

Speed limits are not only used for 'safety' but also used in many places to manage the relationship between speed and flow of traffic.

Some of the lower speed limits on busy A roads, complex junctions and motorways are there to improve the flow of traffic. You will cover distance quicker and more vehicles will pass a certain distance when travelling at a constant 50mph along a congested motorway e,g., the M25 in busy places, than lurching from 70mph to stop multiple times...

This all sounds lovely. I even believe that it works in principal. However, what actually happens is that the speed limit continually oscillates between 40 and 60 mph, changing every quarter of a mile. This means people speed up when the limit increases and then have to brake when it is immediately decreased, causing exactly the same issues that we'd have had without millions of pounds worth of gantries and years of painful motorway roadworks.

[Pan Pan]

Mave said:

Pan Pan said:

Mave said:

Pan Pan said:

Mave said:

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.

Even if reduced speed doesn't change the number of RTAs, surely it changes the severity?

No, it only reduces the energy involved in a given incident, a moving vehicle of any kind, even a bicycle
has the potential to kill, or injure, even at speeds as low as 1 mph.

But a moving vehicle at higher speed has more potential to kill than one at lower speed. So if there is an accident, surely if it is a low speed it will be a less severe accident that one at high speed?

If it is a low speed imposed to maker accidents less severe, what should that low speed be?? What speed does a vehicle have to move at to make it safe? My answer would be zero to possibly 1 to 2mph.

I wasn't advocating any particular threshold. Simply disagreeing with your view that speed has no relevance to the severity of an impact.

Mave said:

At the speeds we deem `normal' for both groups, the slow moving soft squashy things (whether inside or outside the fast moving hard things) will always come of worst. Reducing speed limits lower than they are now, will have little, or no effect on this, unless vehicle speeds are brought down so low, there would be no longer be any point in having, or using them.

The difference in injury to the slow squashy things if hit at 20, 30, or 40mph is markedly different. The difference in injury to the fast squashy things inside the car is markedly different if crashing at 50, 60, or 70mph.

I do not have the view that speed has no relevance to the severity of an accident. That is simply a matter of physics. I was referring to the naive view of some, that if they drive slowly, they will be `safe' and be safe drivers. How would you like to be hit by a vehicle doing 10mph let alone 20 or 30?
If we bring down speed limits to the point where vehicles become `safe' there would be no point whatsoever of having and using vehicles of any kind. So the there is must always be a difference between what is a safe speed for vehicles, and a safe speed for the soft squashy slow moving things in and around them.
In this crowded country we choose to mix the slow moving soft squashy things,with the fast moving hard things in the cramped crowded environment we know as roads. So tell me, what speed should vehicles be limited to, to stop the fast moving hard things, damaging the slow moving squashy things?
Do you actually believe there is such a speed? Do you believe vehicle speed limits should be reduced even further, if so, how much effect do you believe that will have on road safety, set against the usability / usefulness of vehicles?