Speed 'not main road killer'
Discussion
Following a totally excellent post by nonegreen
Problem is that the common denominator is getting lower and lower in some places. Yet in other, in my opinion, more dangerous places, drivers are trusted to travel at an appropriate pace.
Agreed and it's supposed to be a ready indicator of the nature and frequency of hazrds likely to be encountered. Except that due to politicians beggaring around the correlation between the set limit and the potential hazards is damaged. Limits used to be more intuitive than they are today.
Agreed.
So when are we going to see some of that from the authorities?
Me too, but to continue our record shouldn't that go on to read ".... appropriate speeds up to the posted limit at all times." Otherwise plenty of places where limit is set below appropriate for amny reasons.
Just part of the general spineless malaise afflicting society in general.
Your wish is my command.
I'll go and get back in the lamp now.
edited to correct spelling of spineless from spinless. DOH! how wrong can one be?
>> Edited by Flat in Fifth on Saturday 2nd October 11:23
monster1 said:
The fact of the matter is that the speed limits are in place on each road for the lowest common denominator. This could be schools, junctions, urban or rural areas. They also have to consider every person that will drive down the road.
Problem is that the common denominator is getting lower and lower in some places. Yet in other, in my opinion, more dangerous places, drivers are trusted to travel at an appropriate pace.
monster1 said:
The idea of speed limits is to give everybody a maximum speed for any road. This doesn’t ensure a safe speed as each driver has to access the environment conditions and make their own assessment.
Agreed and it's supposed to be a ready indicator of the nature and frequency of hazrds likely to be encountered. Except that due to politicians beggaring around the correlation between the set limit and the potential hazards is damaged. Limits used to be more intuitive than they are today.
monster1 said:
Speed is a factor in every collision. If the speed of all vehicles involved was zero then no collisions would occur. As you increase the speed of a vehicle the risk also increases, giving the drivers and other road users less time to react.
I would rather a vehicle travel towards me at 10mph than 70mph.
You can blame road furniture, road designs, weather conditions, children, cyclists or other drivers as much as you like but in each and every situation if the speed was slower (or zero) a collision COULD be avoided.
Every single collision I have attended could have been avoided. It’s not always the drivers fault, a drunken pedestrian walking out in front of a car etc. but if the driver was doing 20mph not 30mph he could have stopped in time.
I’m not suggesting that everybody drives at 10mph.
Agreed.
monster1 said:
Common sense has to play a part.
So when are we going to see some of that from the authorities?
monster1 said:
I know people are getting annoyed and frustrated at the mass increase in speed cameras, myself included. But I don’t have any points on my licence and have never been flashed by a camera. Why? Because I drive and ride to appropriate speeds at all times.
Me too, but to continue our record shouldn't that go on to read ".... appropriate speeds up to the posted limit at all times." Otherwise plenty of places where limit is set below appropriate for amny reasons.
monster1 said:
In all cases where a driver has lost control by
travelling too fast they say (if they are still alive) “I’m a good driver, It was the weather, the bend was too tight, I didn’t see the other car or pedestrian, I just lost control for no reason”.
Very few people admit that their driving was below standard.
Just part of the general spineless malaise afflicting society in general.
monster1 said:
I know that some of you will cut and paste selections of this text and put your own slant on it, that’s fine. Just take it in the context of the whole message.
Your wish is my command.
I'll go and get back in the lamp now.
edited to correct spelling of spineless from spinless. DOH! how wrong can one be?
>> Edited by Flat in Fifth on Saturday 2nd October 11:23
More "if"'s here than anything. "If" the driver does 70 atdawn and dosent lose control(why would he??) then there are NO bad results.
Face it, lifes a lottery. You can die at 10mph, you die at 110mph, the only difference is how many bits youll be in at the end of the event, but youll still be dead as a dodo.
Speed limits are imho a pointless form of control that are ignored by all, yes, all.
If there's anyone on here can say they dont exceed a speed limit ever, even by accident then i'll be most surprised.
And if thats the case, that we've all exceeded a speed limit at some time, then just whats the big "effing" (no swear filters needed!) deal with exceeding them?
Crashes will happen even under the most controlled conditions, its just a fact of life (and death), so the sooner the plebs in "authority" understand that its pointless to try and make millions of drivers go slower for no benefit except scamcash, the better off they and we will be.
I see the "end of speech" light has been turned on, but just let me say one last thing...........let go of me...arggghh i havent finished yet!.....mmmmmmummmble..
Face it, lifes a lottery. You can die at 10mph, you die at 110mph, the only difference is how many bits youll be in at the end of the event, but youll still be dead as a dodo.
Speed limits are imho a pointless form of control that are ignored by all, yes, all.
If there's anyone on here can say they dont exceed a speed limit ever, even by accident then i'll be most surprised.
And if thats the case, that we've all exceeded a speed limit at some time, then just whats the big "effing" (no swear filters needed!
) deal with exceeding them? Crashes will happen even under the most controlled conditions, its just a fact of life (and death), so the sooner the plebs in "authority" understand that its pointless to try and make millions of drivers go slower for no benefit except scamcash, the better off they and we will be.
I see the "end of speech" light has been turned on, but just let me say one last thing...........let go of me...arggghh i havent finished yet!.....mmmmmmummmble..
Streetcop said:
I agree...so instead of internet chat rooms.....get the petitions started and the lobbying of government...then...
You probably know I'm doing loads of that stuff - although a petition isn't of much use in developing and winning the necessary technical arguments. For example, I'm speaking at a fringe meeting at the Conservative Party conference on Tuesday.
However, "internet chat" facilities are of great benefit in understanding opinions and developing arguments... Thanks!
>> Edited by safespeed on Saturday 2nd October 11:25
safespeed said:
Speed limits will never go away...
Debate is worthless
We don't need speed limits to go away. We just need proper road safety policies that take proper account of the true facts. That'll lead to sensible policing and few (if any) speed cameras.
It isn't a lot to ask - and it's no more than we are entitled to.
The competent and careful actions of a majority of responsible people should obviously be considered legal.
But the problem is that they are not capable of being responsible.
There are those that would treat the system with a subjective view and also have the ability to travwel very much faster than everyone in their immediate environment with abilities which are far less than they perceive about themselves.
There would be those who are inexperienced who would also take a view similar to the above.
If you allow people to decide themselves what is competent and careful for them, there would be a huge disparity in the standards displayed across the board.
Speed cameras will never go away because they cause fear of capture and they are cheaper than humans (Police Officers) to cover. The majority of decent people know that and are therefore more careful!
I drove the A46? (I Think) from Leeds to Ilkley a few weeks ago. I have never ever seen so many cameras!
There must have been a camera covering every 300 meters or so along that route for most of it.
There were not any people speeding down that road and anyone doing so would either require sectioning under Sect 136 mental health act or be driving someone elses car (without their consent). The residents along that stretch must be overwhelmingly happy about the speed of vehicles past their houses
safespeed said:
"Risk" in these contexts is clearly a product of the liklihood and the severity of the outcome, so you're in error on that point.
For example, overall road risk is usually expressed in terms of deaths per billion vehicle kilometres.
Seeing as the rest of your comments stem from the same error, I don't suppose I need to comment.
But it is your error mixing up risk and probability!
The risk to a driver crashing at 70mph wherever they do it is the same. It will cause the same equivalent damage to other property and roughly the same consequences if they hit similar things.
The risk to everyone else is higher and more probable in areas of higher population at the time. That is why you are wrong about using risk in a 'context'. Risk and probablility are different things entirely.
The risk of crashing at 70mph is significant wherever it happens.
The probablility of increased damage/injury is inherrent to the location it happens!
gone said:This is what happens at the moment on nearly every road, and thank goodness it does. The vast majority of drivers are responsible. They (we) set a speed that is safe for the conditions, not in keeping with an arbitrary and stupidly low number on a pole, set by politicians and flunkies and councillors practising political correctness. This responsible driver behaviour sees the vast majority of motorists slowing below the speed limit where conditions require, and also exceeding the limit where conditions allow. This should indeed be legal as it is the basis for effective road safety.
If you allow people to decide themselves what is competent and careful for them, there would be a huge disparity in the standards displayed across the board.
It is they, the limit setters, who have no real knowledge of road safety issues, and ignore advice from those who do, including the police. In nearly every speed limit reduction notice I've seen published in Glos and Oxon, the police lodged objections along with the rest of us, and were ignored. The Suffolk district Coroner Bill Wolrond has supported the view that if a majority of drivers break a speed limit we must ask if the limit is too low - and the answer will be yes. He made these comments at an inquest on road deaths where he also stated publicly that unrealistically slow limits were partially responsible.
turbobloke said:
The speed limit is set because of the information available to road planners who predict the risk in that environment.
Once upon a time - if ever. Nowadays speed limits are set by politicians or their flunkies, plus local councillors, taking part in a political correctness competition called 'How Low Can You Go'.
You forget why!
Who is it that gets up local petitions and writes to local papers every week of the year in every local town where there is such a journal applying pressure to councils to 'lower the limit', 'put in humps', 'traffic calming', 'speed cameras', other draconian measure to stop others from driving fast through their district?
Pressure from the 'people' is the reason it happens!
turbobloke said:
. Wer ya bin?
Reading the local papers and avoiding the building of new traffic calming schemes approved of by the local council after years of petitions to my local wrag!
gone said:Good on yer
Wer ya bin?
Reading the local papers and avoiding the building of new traffic calming schemes approved of by the local council after years of petitions
But as per my later post, if plod is ignored, what hope the rest? Political correctness has as one of its tenets that it confers absolute wisdom and truth via the ether into the minds of the enlightened ones. That's why the bunch of muppets ruining our road safety record ignore science, real experts, sensible people like you, etc.turbobloke said:
Wer ya bin?
Reading the local papers and avoiding the building of new traffic calming schemes approved of by the local council after years of petitions
Good on yer
I think some of you especially Paul Smith read me wrong!
I am not an advocate of speed cameras, camera vans, traffic calming or any other system to slow people down.
I am concerned about the standards of driving on our roads which are generally poor. That is why there are so many crashes every day whether they be at high or low speed, and of minor or serious consequence.
It infuriates me that parts of the A329 from Thame to wallingford have been restricted in the way they have because of pressure form residents which have convinced the councils there to act! Totally needless in most areas!
I agree with the message that Paul Smith and Safespeed are trying to get across, but the way it is happening is not altogether helpful.
Trying to blind authorities with figures and clever definitions is never going to work because they are experts at that game themselves!!!
gone said:
I think some of you especially Paul Smith read me wrong!
The fault of the reader or the writer or both?
gone said:
I am not an advocate of speed cameras, camera vans, traffic calming or any other system to slow people down.
good on yer again
gone said:
I am concerned about the standards of driving on our roads which are generally poor.
No they're not, you're being unduly influenced by the tide of propaganda from the muppets, designed to do just that, and also while you may see the occasional example of muppetry from drivers, by far the biggest hazard on the roads comes from reckless pedestrians, this is detailed in numerous police reports. This country has - for now, but fading fast - the best road safety record in the world. Every visitor to these shores who passengers with me on long or short drives comments on the very high standards of driving and how there are so very few accidents. Sorry but you seem to have inhaled too much information pollution.
>> Edited by turbobloke on Saturday 2nd October 12:18
gone said:
safespeed said:
Streetcop said:
Speed limits will never go away...
Debate is worthless
We don't need speed limits to go away. We just need proper road safety policies that take proper account of the true facts. That'll lead to sensible policing and few (if any) speed cameras.
It isn't a lot to ask - and it's no more than we are entitled to.
The competent and careful actions of a majority of responsible people should obviously be considered legal.
But the problem is that they are not capable of being responsible.
But German people choose the correct speed for A/bahn all the time.
You are doing your fellow people down here. OK You are paying me compliment of being super duper person as I am "foreign" - half English - but educated abroad and L1 is not English - so "foreign"
Your problem here - Liebchen - und said it before - you do not teach properly in first place. We can raise m/way right now to 80mph as we stand - majority can cope. But we need that training in place for all to keep it safe and raise standard all around - so that that minority improve. That is what we need - not Blitzer! Every skill improves with correct training and practice - und that is what we should be gearing up towards.
lieber gone said:
There are those that would treat the system with a subjective view and also have the ability to travwel very much faster than everyone in their immediate environment with abilities which are far less than they perceive about themselves.
That is another reason why we need to improve initial training and work towards introducing carrot to motivate towards that training - cheaper insurance premiums would be good incentive.
I do not agree with a system whereby I can floor it up the overtaking lane because I passed a RoSPA doo-dah in the past. Impossible to police and numpty will copy me!
Or get into wrong lane and what do you do in event of lane closure? Yes - met twazak from hell yesterday. Was tootling down A road at 27 mph (well b2 said 24mph
) Road was dark, driving rain and a wind was up. Approached bollards in middle of road - und numpty overtook at most inappropriate place and hurtled off into distance at above 40mph easy. Road conditions dictated that even 30mph was bit too FAST! Gatso not there - but all this would have done was issue fine and points. OK - numpty in this instance would have deserved it - but what exactly has he LEARNED? Would he GASP, when he receives NIP on post "I should not have driven past Wildy Cat in that dangerous fashion and at unsafe speed in those condition - causing her to almost give birth in the car because I frightened her a bit!" I do not think so....
Agreed - this numpty probably had head ego which made getting in and out of his Festa bit difficult....and probably thinks he is a good driver ..... but a Gatso ain't gonna stop him and for all I know -could have been an unqualified chav anyway....
I need a BiB on that road. I want Strassen
YOU! Dibble und the silvery backed one! That is what our Paulie wants! The good old days! Not scamerati prretzels who do
all for road safety. Proper and appropriate speed limits, decent driver training for all, and BIBs - YOU LOT - on the road.
We are protecting your jobs and your fat pensions by demanding this!
Not too bothered if you never read your "Dickens" - I want you on the road! Und I want you chasing after chavs und not unexploded doughnuts which requires tonning it on hard shoulders! lieber gone said:
Speed cameras will never go away because they cause fear of capture and they are cheaper than humans (Police Officers) to cover. The majority of decent people know that and are therefore more careful!
ahahahahahahahahaha! Really? Those wide boys who joy ride ain't that fussy! They could not care less - cos they know the Gartso cannot run out and catch them - und they know registered keeper has job proving to Steviebabes (who is one slice short of full loaf) that he was not driving it at the time!
Und if that is so - how come these decent people get pinged at 32mph - as has been known = und what about the one which pings all the time in Yorkshire - claiming that everyone has driven past it at 83mph? When they set cruise control to 65mph? Have read about this one 5 times now!
lieber gone said:
I drove the A46? (I Think) from Leeds to Ilkley a few weeks ago. I have never ever seen so many cameras!
There must have been a camera covering every 300 meters or so along that route for most of it.
It is over-kill. Lancs do this - usually on road which is dual carriageway - no houses or anything - und on gradient or camber which means you have to ride brake a bit to keep it down. You do not drive better - you are on look out for damn things! Und you have beady eye on the b2!
lieber gone said:
There were not any people speeding down that road and anyone doing so would either require sectioning under Sect 136 mental health act or be driving someone elses car (without their consent). The residents along that stretch must be overwhelmingly happy about the speed of vehicles past their houses
Und I bet they feel so safe that they let their kittens play out on the street too.
I have seen people cross at these damn things - und I even asked one pretzel why und got "yer sposed to slow darn aintya!
wimmin driver! mutter mutteer yadder yadder!" hope I got those pesky quote thingies sorted this time
>> Edited by WildCat on Saturday 2nd October 12:34
Streetcop said:
However, "internet chat" facilities are of great benefit in understanding opinions and developing arguments... Thanks!
I wasn't being rude...sorry if it came across like that..
No no! ... That was sincere "Thanks" from me for stimulating debate and developing arguments.
I never thought you were being rude.
>> Edited by safespeed on Saturday 2nd October 12:50
gone said:
We don't need speed limits to go away. We just need proper road safety policies that take proper account of the true facts. That'll lead to sensible policing and few (if any) speed cameras.
It isn't a lot to ask - and it's no more than we are entitled to.
The competent and careful actions of a majority of responsible people should obviously be considered legal.
But the problem is that they are not capable of being responsible.
The MAJORITY? Really? I don't know what roads you're observing, but I see at least 19/20 vehicles being driven with reasonable care and responsibility.
Sure, we're not perfect and there's room for improvement, but penalising responsible drivers at random for exceeding an arbitrary limit safely isn't going to help is it?
gone said:
But it is your error mixing up risk and probability!
The risk to a driver crashing at 70mph wherever they do it is the same. It will cause the same equivalent damage to other property and roughly the same consequences if they hit similar things.
So the risk, i.e. the likelyhood of a driver losing control at 70mph on a wide, long road with sweeping curves and sliproads is the same as the risk of a driver dying at 70mph on an NSL A or B road with tight corners, side roads and potholes.
safespeed said:
"Risk" in these contexts is clearly a product of the liklihood and the severity of the outcome
Indeed this is correct. What Gone has failed to account for is probability depends upon the definition fo what that outcome or event is, and is trying to confuse people by defining different outcomes with different similes. At the end of the day the chance of any event happening from the chance of someone stepping in that fox turd to the chance of someone losing control of their vehicle to the chance of all the air molecules in a room moving to one side at the same time can be reduced to cold hard numbers however likely or unlikely an event is.
Streetcop said:
I must agree.....the majority of drivers do drive safely...not particularly well..but safely...
I regularly see cutting across lanes on roundabout and that sort of stuff...but outright dangerous driving is thankfully quite rare.....
Well I'm glad that at least one or two of you are now recognising that.
It seems to have been fashionable for some time to complain about the allegedly abysmal standard of driving generally on display, but I really think the criticism has been overdone. Driving is, after all, a complex task which most people perform for long periods with a pretty high degree of reliability. By all means complain about the really bad examples, but let's be fair and give credit where it's due.
In my view the majority of drivers do pretty well on the whole, though obviously we could all do better, and I very much look forward to the day when standards are securely on an improving trend.
While recognising the merits of some form of speed limit regime it surely can not make sense to have such a degree of rigidity in the system as we currently have.
For example, within five miles of where I live, we have a wide range of road conditions from narrow country lanes to good A class roads, all of which are subject to a speed limit of 60 mph. In some of the country lanes I find anything more than about 25 to 30 mph would be excessive, whereas on stretches of the A class roads I reckon 85 mph in the wet can be quite satisfactory, but the 60 limit applies throughout at all times. How on earth can that be appropriate?
While appreciating that driver ability varies considerably, the application of a 60 mph limit on such widely differing road types is sheer nonsense.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff