Speed limits research

[321boost]

SS2. said:

Odd that they feel the need to keep changing their username.

Perhaps it's a Cumbrian thing..

I think I asked once but never got an answer.

[321boost]

Graveworm said:

Thanks, I thought originally it was someone interested in a debate, albeit with a different point of view. I didn't realise it was the poster formally known as Ghe13rte.
Speeding is against the law, anyone is entitled to think that the law should be complied with and enforced. I only have an issue when they overstate the safety aspect and dismiss anything negative, as a way to justify it.

I doubt you can have a constructive debate with him/her. They do (imo) seem to have some kind of personality complex.

Anyway I agree with you that they overstate the safety aspect. I find myself concentrating better at higher speeds than at lower speeds and because of that I’m sure someone will now come along and tell me I shouldn’t be driving.

[Exige77]

321boost said:

Graveworm said:

Thanks, I thought originally it was someone interested in a debate, albeit with a different point of view. I didn't realise it was the poster formally known as Ghe13rte.
Speeding is against the law, anyone is entitled to think that the law should be complied with and enforced. I only have an issue when they overstate the safety aspect and dismiss anything negative, as a way to justify it.

I doubt you can have a constructive debate with him/her. They do (imo) seem to have some kind of personality complex.

Anyway I agree with you that they overstate the safety aspect. I find myself concentrating better at higher speeds than at lower speeds and because of that I’m sure someone will now come along and tell me I shouldn’t be driving.

You shouldn’t be driving !!!

Nor should I in that case yet.

[Dr Jekyll]

If someone suggested that raising a speed limit would improve safety, and they tried it and it didn't. It would be clear they were wrong, there would be no point in them saying 'if drivers had behaved differently it would have worked' because the whole point of the limit is to improve driver behaviour. Yet for some reason this excuse is trotted out by those who want to reduce limits.

[vonhosen]

Dr Jekyll said:

If someone suggested that raising a speed limit would improve safety, and they tried it and it didn't. It would be clear they were wrong, there would be no point in them saying 'if drivers had behaved differently it would have worked' because the whole point of the limit is to improve driver behaviour. Yet for some reason this excuse is trotted out by those who want to reduce limits.

We used to have no national speed limit & we've had some increased limits following reviews.

[Truffs]

321boost said:

Graveworm said:

Thanks, I thought originally it was someone interested in a debate, albeit with a different point of view. I didn't realise it was the poster formally known as Ghe13rte.
Speeding is against the law, anyone is entitled to think that the law should be complied with and enforced. I only have an issue when they overstate the safety aspect and dismiss anything negative, as a way to justify it.

I doubt you can have a constructive debate with him/her. They do (imo) seem to have some kind of personality complex.

Anyway I agree with you that they overstate the safety aspect. I find myself concentrating better at higher speeds than at lower speeds and because of that I’m sure someone will now come along and tell me I shouldn’t be driving.

Yup and he was tapereel as well as pitsman boots. I suspect that if he is human then he needs treatment for his personality disorder but I actually think he is a version of AI and every improvement they make means a username change. It would be nice if they could teach it to interact about cars (this being a car forum) but alas no it’s still a one trick chat bot, and one that fails the Turing Test too.

It would be better if they tested it out at BRAKE HQ or did a version of it on Mums Net bleating on about social services or something similar. Perhaps we could start a petion to get it fixed?

[Graveworm]

vonhosen said:

We used to have no national speed limit & we've had some increased limits following reviews.

Not sure about the latter but it's important to remember for the former, we have significantly higher average and 85th percentile figures on roads now subject to the "Temporary" national speed limit, from when they were introduced, yet they are an order of magnitude safer.

[Atomic12C]

Socially acceptable factors deciding speed limits
- Road design speed (A-road, M-road, tightness of bends, sight lines etc)
- Nature of the road (urban, extra-urban)
- proximity to vulnerable people (schools etc.)
- accident black spot (in the proper definition whereby it is a "spot" and not an entire road length)

Socially unacceptable factors deciding speed limits
- local rally groups who bought a property in proximity to a road complaining about noise, 'safety' and 'emissions'
- national pressure groups with vested interests (ie. brake, cycle groups, anti-car/anti-capitalism lobbyists)
- climate change (CO2 emissions)
- cheapest 'fix' adoption instead of an engineering solution
- congestion (because design solutions should be funded - ie. by-passes, wider roads, more lanes etc.)

[vonhosen]

Atomic12C said:

Socially acceptable factors deciding speed limits
- Road design speed (A-road, M-road, tightness of bends, sight lines etc)
- Nature of the road (urban, extra-urban)
- proximity to vulnerable people (schools etc.)
- accident black spot (in the proper definition whereby it is a "spot" and not an entire road length)

Socially unacceptable factors deciding speed limits
- local rally groups who bought a property in proximity to a road complaining about noise, 'safety' and 'emissions'
- national pressure groups with vested interests (ie. brake, cycle groups, anti-car/anti-capitalism lobbyists)
- climate change (CO2 emissions)
- cheapest 'fix' adoption instead of an engineering solution
- congestion (because design solutions should be funded - ie. by-passes, wider roads, more lanes etc.)

For you, others will have different criteria.
That's why we have elected governments to wade through it all & produce a compromise.

[anonymous-user]

vonhosen said:

Atomic12C said:

Socially acceptable factors deciding speed limits
- Road design speed (A-road, M-road, tightness of bends, sight lines etc)
- Nature of the road (urban, extra-urban)
- proximity to vulnerable people (schools etc.)
- accident black spot (in the proper definition whereby it is a "spot" and not an entire road length)

Socially unacceptable factors deciding speed limits
- local rally groups who bought a property in proximity to a road complaining about noise, 'safety' and 'emissions'
- national pressure groups with vested interests (ie. brake, cycle groups, anti-car/anti-capitalism lobbyists)
- climate change (CO2 emissions)
- cheapest 'fix' adoption instead of an engineering solution
- congestion (because design solutions should be funded - ie. by-passes, wider roads, more lanes etc.)

For you, others will have different criteria.
That's why we have elected governments to wade through it all & produce a compromise.

They do?

And there was necthinkng they all they did was waltz around Brexit, serving their own self interest.

It seems a long time since our government ‘waded through and produced a compromise’ on anything.......

[vonhosen]

REALIST123 said:

vonhosen said:

Atomic12C said:

Socially acceptable factors deciding speed limits
- Road design speed (A-road, M-road, tightness of bends, sight lines etc)
- Nature of the road (urban, extra-urban)
- proximity to vulnerable people (schools etc.)
- accident black spot (in the proper definition whereby it is a "spot" and not an entire road length)

Socially unacceptable factors deciding speed limits
- local rally groups who bought a property in proximity to a road complaining about noise, 'safety' and 'emissions'
- national pressure groups with vested interests (ie. brake, cycle groups, anti-car/anti-capitalism lobbyists)
- climate change (CO2 emissions)
- cheapest 'fix' adoption instead of an engineering solution
- congestion (because design solutions should be funded - ie. by-passes, wider roads, more lanes etc.)

For you, others will have different criteria.
That's why we have elected governments to wade through it all & produce a compromise.

They do?

And there was necthinkng they all they did was waltz around Brexit, serving their own self interest.

It seems a long time since our government ‘waded through and produced a compromise’ on anything.......

We've had speed limits a long time.

[321boost]

Truffs said:

Yup and he was tapereel as well as pitsman boots. I suspect that if he is human then he needs treatment for his personality disorder but I actually think he is a version of AI and every improvement they make means a username change. It would be nice if they could teach it to interact about cars (this being a car forum) but alas no it’s still a one trick chat bot, and one that fails the Turing Test too.

It would be better if they tested it out at BRAKE HQ or did a version of it on Mums Net bleating on about social services or something similar. Perhaps we could start a petion to get it fixed?

I have a suspicion that he was drf7xx something too at one point.
Perhaps if there was ever a troll bot for the brake BS forums then I reckon some of the reactions will be hilarious.

[321boost]

Exige77 said:

You shouldn’t be driving !!!

Nor should I in that case yet.

• hands in licence to DVLA*

[321boost]

vonhosen said:

We've had speed limits a long time.

We haven't had ridiculous reductions in speed limits a long time ago, it is more of a recent trend.

[vonhosen]

321boost said:

vonhosen said:

We've had speed limits a long time.

We haven't had ridiculous reductions in speed limits a long time ago, it is more of a recent trend.

REALIST123 thinks they've done nothing but dance around Brexit.
321boost thinks they've instead been performing ridiculous reductions in speeds limits.

Perhaps the difference in perception is to do with the order of numbers 1,2 & 3 in the username & perhaps the truth is some compromise in between.

Local authorities were instructed to review their speed limits (circa 2011?) so they review them. That has resulted in movements both up & down (more down than up from what I've seen). Whether they've gone up or down hasn't had any great impact on me personally, so I find it hard to get worked up about it all. National speed limits are still national speed limits. ie It's still a 70 limit on the motorway, except where smart motorways use temporary limits & I actually find they help the traffic keep flowing better. The only other difference I've seen have personal impact is the raising of LGV NSL limit on single carriageways from 40 to 50 which from what I can see makes it more difficult to legally overtake LGVs on those roads, but hey ho.

[BertBert]

vonhosen said:

National speed limits are still national speed limits. ie It's still a 70 limit on the motorway, except where smart motorways use temporary limits & I actually find they help the traffic keep flowing better. The only other difference I've seen have personal impact is the raising of LGV NSL limit on single carriageways from 40 to 50 which from what I can see makes it more difficult to legally overtake LGVs on those roads, but hey ho.

One very clear (to me) change is he number of single carriageway roads which have been reduced from NSL to 50 or even 40.
Bert

[vonhosen]

BertBert said:

vonhosen said:

National speed limits are still national speed limits. ie It's still a 70 limit on the motorway, except where smart motorways use temporary limits & I actually find they help the traffic keep flowing better. The only other difference I've seen have personal impact is the raising of LGV NSL limit on single carriageways from 40 to 50 which from what I can see makes it more difficult to legally overtake LGVs on those roads, but hey ho.

One very clear (to me) change is he number of single carriageway roads which have been reduced from NSL to 50 or even 40.
Bert

My point was what the NSL was set at is the same, save LGV changes in E&W.
Yes some NSL roads were reduced following the reviews that LAs were told to carry out.

[Repel_Max]

vonhosen said:

... The only other difference I've seen have personal impact is the raising of LGV NSL limit on single carriageways from 40 to 50 which from what I can see makes it more difficult to legally overtake LGVs on those roads, but hey ho.

I don't think you have got that right.

LGVs were mostly being driven at 56mph in a 40mph limit as they are now in 50mph limits.

[vonhosen]

Repel_Max said:

vonhosen said:

... The only other difference I've seen have personal impact is the raising of LGV NSL limit on single carriageways from 40 to 50 which from what I can see makes it more difficult to legally overtake LGVs on those roads, but hey ho.

I don't think you have got that right.

LGVs were mostly being driven at 56mph in a 40mph limit as they are now in 50mph limits.

Nope, my experience is clearly different to yours (& I was talking about the personal impact I was experiencing).

[anonymous-user]

Repel_Max said:

Here is the chart with the casualty risk added. The safest drivers are not where you thought they were.

I've seem some ste posted on this forum, but this is comedy gold