If you DONT want Speed limits lowered everywhere -
Discussion
The government is planning to change the way speed limits are set by recommending that speed limits are set in-line with the avg. speed rather than the 85th percentile.
This will result in a wide-spread speed limit reduction campaign that will see most NSL A and B roads lowered to 30/40 for minor roads and 50 for through roads.
It also means the govt. will be able to regularly review a road and each time reduce it's limit.
IMO it is vital that the actions of the mojority should remain legal, which is reflected in the 85 percentile rule. If we have a speed limit set inline with the avg. 50% of road users will be speeding. Just think the avg. speed in london is 15 mph.
if you would like to object take part in the review:
www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/grou...ety_032879.hcsp
or email caroline.britt@dft.gsi.gov.uk
Copied directly from another forum, and apologies if this has been raised before - but be aware of its importance.
This will result in a wide-spread speed limit reduction campaign that will see most NSL A and B roads lowered to 30/40 for minor roads and 50 for through roads.
It also means the govt. will be able to regularly review a road and each time reduce it's limit.
IMO it is vital that the actions of the mojority should remain legal, which is reflected in the 85 percentile rule. If we have a speed limit set inline with the avg. 50% of road users will be speeding. Just think the avg. speed in london is 15 mph.
if you would like to object take part in the review:
www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/grou...ety_032879.hcsp
or email caroline.britt@dft.gsi.gov.uk
Copied directly from another forum, and apologies if this has been raised before - but be aware of its importance.
Yes. This is important. Safe Speed issued the following PR on 23rd November at 22:50:
===================================================
PR149: Backdoor Government plan to ratchet down speed limits
NEWS: for immediate release
A recently published new draft of the Government's primary local speed
limit setting advice document contains some worrying changes.
Astonishingly speed limits will be set such that 50% of motorists will
be exceeding them.
Paul Smith, founder of the Safe Speed road safety campaign explains:
"All around the world and for many decades, speed limits have been set
in accordance with the speed of traffic at such a level that only the
fastest few should be prosecuted. Research evidence shows that this is
the safest and most effective way to set speed limits. There has been
some erosion of this principle over the last decade, but the new
document promises a far more restrictive regime. In future the
Government intends that speed limits should be set at the average
speed of traffic. This immediately means that half of all motorists
will be exceeding the new speed limits."
Paul continues: "The effect of this will be a gradual ratcheting down
of speed limits and far more motorists criminalised despite the fact
that they will be driving at a safe and appropriate speed according to
the conditions."
Paul explains the techincal details. "Speed limits have long been set
at the level not exceeded by 85% of motorists. This is called 'the
85th percentile rule'. The new proposals abandon the 85th percentile
rule and replace it with a 'mean speed rule'. This means that with a
typical speed limit defined under the new scheme, 50% of drivers will
be exceeding the speed limit by definition."
For over ten years now we have speed reducing speed limits and speed
cameras are spreading like a virus. The fact is this policy is
comprehensively failing to reduce road deaths, yet the Government
sticks stubbornly to its guns. They must be saying: 'The medicine
isn't working! Let's increase the dose!'
'Speed kills' road safety policy has become a dogma, encouraged by a
series of vested interests. It isn't working and must be abandoned.
Every rational person knows that 'The competent and careful actions
of a majority of responsible people should obviously be considered
legal.' Yet with speed limit laws, applied over-zealously we are
criminalising the vast majority - and the government proposes to make
it worse.
<ends>
Notes for editors
This is a technical subject, but the effects are enormous and
dangerous. Please try and find a way of explaining the changes to your
readers, listeners or viewers.
The new document:
www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_rdsafety/documents/pdf/dft_rdsafety_pdf_032880.pdf
Contains:
Quote: "37. Circular 1/93 advised the use of 85th percentile speed to
determine local speed limits. This refers to the speed at, or below,
which 85 per cent of the traffic is travelling. Viewed another way it
is the speed only 15 percent of drivers exceed. Practitioners'
thinking has evolved since then and many have expressed concern that
85th percentile speed can be heavily influenced by excessive speeds
travelled by a minority of drivers. Some Traffic Authorities have
therefore adopted the use of Mean speeds in assessing what is an
appropriate local speed limit, as they are felt to better reflect what
the majority of drivers perceive as an appropriate speed for the road.
The Department shares this view and therefore recommends that mean
speeds be used in future assessments of appropriate speed limits."
Understanding speed limits and the 85th percentile rule:
www.safespeed.org.uk/speedlimits.html
================================================
Note that this is a consultation process. Safe Speed will be responding with a fully detailed technical argument. A template will be available for building your own submission.
The consultation closes on 18th February 2005. The home page on the DfT web site is:
www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_rdsafety/documents/divisionhomepage/032869.hcsp
===================================================
PR149: Backdoor Government plan to ratchet down speed limits
NEWS: for immediate release
A recently published new draft of the Government's primary local speed
limit setting advice document contains some worrying changes.
Astonishingly speed limits will be set such that 50% of motorists will
be exceeding them.
Paul Smith, founder of the Safe Speed road safety campaign explains:
"All around the world and for many decades, speed limits have been set
in accordance with the speed of traffic at such a level that only the
fastest few should be prosecuted. Research evidence shows that this is
the safest and most effective way to set speed limits. There has been
some erosion of this principle over the last decade, but the new
document promises a far more restrictive regime. In future the
Government intends that speed limits should be set at the average
speed of traffic. This immediately means that half of all motorists
will be exceeding the new speed limits."
Paul continues: "The effect of this will be a gradual ratcheting down
of speed limits and far more motorists criminalised despite the fact
that they will be driving at a safe and appropriate speed according to
the conditions."
Paul explains the techincal details. "Speed limits have long been set
at the level not exceeded by 85% of motorists. This is called 'the
85th percentile rule'. The new proposals abandon the 85th percentile
rule and replace it with a 'mean speed rule'. This means that with a
typical speed limit defined under the new scheme, 50% of drivers will
be exceeding the speed limit by definition."
For over ten years now we have speed reducing speed limits and speed
cameras are spreading like a virus. The fact is this policy is
comprehensively failing to reduce road deaths, yet the Government
sticks stubbornly to its guns. They must be saying: 'The medicine
isn't working! Let's increase the dose!'
'Speed kills' road safety policy has become a dogma, encouraged by a
series of vested interests. It isn't working and must be abandoned.
Every rational person knows that 'The competent and careful actions
of a majority of responsible people should obviously be considered
legal.' Yet with speed limit laws, applied over-zealously we are
criminalising the vast majority - and the government proposes to make
it worse.
<ends>
Notes for editors
This is a technical subject, but the effects are enormous and
dangerous. Please try and find a way of explaining the changes to your
readers, listeners or viewers.
The new document:
www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_rdsafety/documents/pdf/dft_rdsafety_pdf_032880.pdf
Contains:
Quote: "37. Circular 1/93 advised the use of 85th percentile speed to
determine local speed limits. This refers to the speed at, or below,
which 85 per cent of the traffic is travelling. Viewed another way it
is the speed only 15 percent of drivers exceed. Practitioners'
thinking has evolved since then and many have expressed concern that
85th percentile speed can be heavily influenced by excessive speeds
travelled by a minority of drivers. Some Traffic Authorities have
therefore adopted the use of Mean speeds in assessing what is an
appropriate local speed limit, as they are felt to better reflect what
the majority of drivers perceive as an appropriate speed for the road.
The Department shares this view and therefore recommends that mean
speeds be used in future assessments of appropriate speed limits."
Understanding speed limits and the 85th percentile rule:
www.safespeed.org.uk/speedlimits.html
================================================
Note that this is a consultation process. Safe Speed will be responding with a fully detailed technical argument. A template will be available for building your own submission.
The consultation closes on 18th February 2005. The home page on the DfT web site is:
www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_rdsafety/documents/divisionhomepage/032869.hcsp
They provide a spreadsheet produced by TRL that shows how to calculate the new speed limit. I've downloaded a copy
www.trl.co.uk/1024/mainpage.asp?page=57
I've played with it a bit and and deeply concerned.
According to TRL for every 1% cut in the mean speed a 2.5% cut in accidents can be expected - if this is the 'science' they are using it's no wonder speed limits are dropping.
In all situations it claims that speed limit reduction reduces accidents and that environmentals and social engineering should be taken into account.
Even in the best cases it shows that all speed limits no matter how high the avg. speed should be lowered to 50mph. Even if there are no accidents!
I put in an example that showed mean speed to be 60 in a 60 (which is very high) one accident per year (very low) huge traffic volume and it still suggested I reduce the limit to 50!
www.trl.co.uk/1024/mainpage.asp?page=57
I've played with it a bit and and deeply concerned.
According to TRL for every 1% cut in the mean speed a 2.5% cut in accidents can be expected - if this is the 'science' they are using it's no wonder speed limits are dropping.
In all situations it claims that speed limit reduction reduces accidents and that environmentals and social engineering should be taken into account.
Even in the best cases it shows that all speed limits no matter how high the avg. speed should be lowered to 50mph. Even if there are no accidents!
I put in an example that showed mean speed to be 60 in a 60 (which is very high) one accident per year (very low) huge traffic volume and it still suggested I reduce the limit to 50!
that dft document said:
Some Traffic Authorities have therefore adopted the use of Mean speeds in assessing what is an appropriate local speed limit, as they are felt to better reflect what
the majority of drivers perceive as an appropriate speed for the road.
Strange logic, that. An average is not a majority!
The government source said:
many have expressed concern that
85th percentile speed can be heavily influenced by excessive speeds
travelled by a minority of drivers.
Absolute, unadulterated bull.
The 85th percentile speed is used so that the minority of drivers who travel at dangerously high speeds do not influence the results.
This isnt manipulation of statistics, this is a fallicy, pure and simple.
I'm thinking of setting up some cheap hotels and a chain of video conferencing facilities.
Even now it is becoming impossible to rely on being able to complete any journey in a reasonable time even without some sort of 'major' incident to really mess things up.
Soon the two hour trip with same for the return for a family visit will no longer be viable in a an average day, let alone one where something goes wrong - like a nutter threatening to jump off a motorway bridge or something similar.
So for many the more obvious options will be:
I have to admit that for many years I have been stupid enough to believe that we all had a vested interest in the road system as the veins and arteries of the economy. Clearly there are people in TRL these days who think in other ways and see a safer existence for the country if artery capacity is reduced by narrowing and flow is slowed by design.
They are making great progress in the cities it seems. Nottingham for example seems to have been well and truly stuffed now after decades of anti car planning. Club closing time was not a great time to be sober. Good job the trams don't run at that time, they'd kill hundreds.
And after the cities will come the cross country routes - firstly with rolling roadblocks on the A and B roads. Thereafter motorways closed for safety reasons if anyone gets a puncture.
So in the long term - hotels.
In the short term maybe a business selling camper vans so that if you do get stuck on the M25 for couple of days you should still be able to eat and sleep and make use of facilities.
No wonder more and more of our 'product' seem to be of a binary construct. Nothing else could be relied upon to reach the export docks.
I suppose the stats could be correct though. A 250% reduction in deaths suggests a move towards births. Just might happen if a couple found themselves gridlocked on the M1 overnight - especially if they owned a camper van!
>> Edited by LongQ on Sunday 5th December 23:34
Even now it is becoming impossible to rely on being able to complete any journey in a reasonable time even without some sort of 'major' incident to really mess things up.
Soon the two hour trip with same for the return for a family visit will no longer be viable in a an average day, let alone one where something goes wrong - like a nutter threatening to jump off a motorway bridge or something similar.
So for many the more obvious options will be:
- see family less often, if at all
- see family as often but be prepared to stay overnight somewhere
- install high speed broadband thoughout family and see family by video conference. (Sell (scrap?)car to reduce tax paid)
- Sell up and move closer to family, possibly with change of job. Alternatively move family closer to you?
- move further from all families on the basis that it is impossible to agree which family to move closer to
- Emigrate without telling anyone or leaving a forwarding address. Send anonymous email to DVLA declaring SORN
I have to admit that for many years I have been stupid enough to believe that we all had a vested interest in the road system as the veins and arteries of the economy. Clearly there are people in TRL these days who think in other ways and see a safer existence for the country if artery capacity is reduced by narrowing and flow is slowed by design.
They are making great progress in the cities it seems. Nottingham for example seems to have been well and truly stuffed now after decades of anti car planning. Club closing time was not a great time to be sober. Good job the trams don't run at that time, they'd kill hundreds.
And after the cities will come the cross country routes - firstly with rolling roadblocks on the A and B roads. Thereafter motorways closed for safety reasons if anyone gets a puncture.
So in the long term - hotels.
In the short term maybe a business selling camper vans so that if you do get stuck on the M25 for couple of days you should still be able to eat and sleep and make use of facilities.
No wonder more and more of our 'product' seem to be of a binary construct. Nothing else could be relied upon to reach the export docks.
I suppose the stats could be correct though. A 250% reduction in deaths suggests a move towards births. Just might happen if a couple found themselves gridlocked on the M1 overnight - especially if they owned a camper van!
>> Edited by LongQ on Sunday 5th December 23:34
My responses:
Q3: The document is totally focused on speed. This is not the main issue relating to accident rates or seriousness, as the government has acknowledged recently by downplaying the "1/3" message. The document therefore seeks a single solution -- reduction in speed limits -- for a multi-faceted problem. For this reason it is deeply flawed.
Q4: No. Definitely not. Its basis is deeply flawed because it assumes that speed is the primary cause of accidents and takes no account of other causes. Nor does it acknowledge that speed limits should be set to facilitate a swift but safe movement of business, freight and personal traffic.
Q5: 85th centile speed has been used to set proper speed limits for a long time. There is no proof that this method is flawed. Using other methods -- mainly politically motivated -- do not work without explicit policing by camera vans and/or static cameras, proving that motorists would otherwise naturally choose a higher, still safe, speed for such roads. The 85th centile is NOT affected by high speeds above the 85th centile -- it is a figure and a method specifically chosen to set the limit at a speed which has been scientifically proven to be the safe speed for the road. The average speed is not the maximum safe speed for the road, but an arbitrary figure that has no relevance to what should be the speed limit.
Q6: No. It is irrelevant.
Q7: I would be most unhappy if this guidance were to be used to set speed limits. You would by definition be criminalising 50% of drivers.
Q8: This guidance should be withdrawn. We should return to speed limits being set by qualified traffic engineers who understand the principles of good practice worldwide. Setting speed limits based on average speeds will do nothing other than require ever more punitive policing policies and will NOT result in fewer accidents and KSIs becuase speed is a minor causation factor.
Q9: No. Roads are for mobility. Within reason, the higher the speed, the greater contribution the road is making to personal freedom and wealth creation. Speed limits should be set taking full account of the benefits of high speeds.
Q10: No. The framework is deeply flawed
Q14: This framework should be withdrawn forthwith. Speed limits should be set according to good practice of qualified road engineers, when they will be effectively self-policing. Unnaturally low limits are generally politically motivated, do not reduce accidents, and have to be enforced by punitive policing. Accept that speed is an essential part of life, and trust well-trained drivers to select an appropriate speed for the conditions. Enforcing unnaturally low limits causes all sorts of negative effects in drivers, without considering their impact on the economy as a whole.
Expected effect: NIL
Q3: The document is totally focused on speed. This is not the main issue relating to accident rates or seriousness, as the government has acknowledged recently by downplaying the "1/3" message. The document therefore seeks a single solution -- reduction in speed limits -- for a multi-faceted problem. For this reason it is deeply flawed.
Q4: No. Definitely not. Its basis is deeply flawed because it assumes that speed is the primary cause of accidents and takes no account of other causes. Nor does it acknowledge that speed limits should be set to facilitate a swift but safe movement of business, freight and personal traffic.
Q5: 85th centile speed has been used to set proper speed limits for a long time. There is no proof that this method is flawed. Using other methods -- mainly politically motivated -- do not work without explicit policing by camera vans and/or static cameras, proving that motorists would otherwise naturally choose a higher, still safe, speed for such roads. The 85th centile is NOT affected by high speeds above the 85th centile -- it is a figure and a method specifically chosen to set the limit at a speed which has been scientifically proven to be the safe speed for the road. The average speed is not the maximum safe speed for the road, but an arbitrary figure that has no relevance to what should be the speed limit.
Q6: No. It is irrelevant.
Q7: I would be most unhappy if this guidance were to be used to set speed limits. You would by definition be criminalising 50% of drivers.
Q8: This guidance should be withdrawn. We should return to speed limits being set by qualified traffic engineers who understand the principles of good practice worldwide. Setting speed limits based on average speeds will do nothing other than require ever more punitive policing policies and will NOT result in fewer accidents and KSIs becuase speed is a minor causation factor.
Q9: No. Roads are for mobility. Within reason, the higher the speed, the greater contribution the road is making to personal freedom and wealth creation. Speed limits should be set taking full account of the benefits of high speeds.
Q10: No. The framework is deeply flawed
Q14: This framework should be withdrawn forthwith. Speed limits should be set according to good practice of qualified road engineers, when they will be effectively self-policing. Unnaturally low limits are generally politically motivated, do not reduce accidents, and have to be enforced by punitive policing. Accept that speed is an essential part of life, and trust well-trained drivers to select an appropriate speed for the conditions. Enforcing unnaturally low limits causes all sorts of negative effects in drivers, without considering their impact on the economy as a whole.
Expected effect: NIL
Simple:- Ignore them.
Out in the sticks, away from blind asylum seekers and lefthanded lesbian trombonists, drive to what you consider a safe speed for the conditions. (Within a sensible stretch of the imagination). If we are to have our rural roads enforced with draconian legislation, we will see an increase in cameras. When that happens, they will be chopped down wholesale.
The government aren't listening and so it is time to neutralise the threat.
Out in the sticks, away from blind asylum seekers and lefthanded lesbian trombonists, drive to what you consider a safe speed for the conditions. (Within a sensible stretch of the imagination). If we are to have our rural roads enforced with draconian legislation, we will see an increase in cameras. When that happens, they will be chopped down wholesale.
The government aren't listening and so it is time to neutralise the threat.
hertsbiker said:
Chief, it's revenue raising, that's what it is. Nothing to do with safety.
Interesting: 1mph = 2.5% ?? then 100% reduction in accidents can be achieved with a 40mph reduction.... errr, does this really mean 30mph on the motorway?
OH SH*T ! we are in the brown smelly stuff.
Yes and its been going on for years but the move from statistic manipulation to using arguments that are obviously and totally flawed is worrying, though not surprising.
Bastards the lot of em.
Where do they find these numbskulls? Does anyone actually believe what these civil servants are saying? I mean lets be honest about it. The problem isn't about speed, it's about differential speed. Why are people preoccupied with the idea that speed is the cause of accidents. The key word is appropriate. If I stumble out onto a dual carriageway doing 35mph, and the two guys haring along are doing 90 (+/-10%). Then we have a problem. If I drove at an appropriate speed, there wouldn't.
I don't know when it was introduced, but the 70mph speed limit was introduced a long time ago. Since then the technology of cars braking systems and tyre technology has moved on enormously. Apparently the josworths in the civil service haven't. Let's think of a way to make law breakers out of citizens who are behaving responsibly , and appropriately for the situation. The we can fine them and generate revenue, give them points on their licences etc, generally criminalise them.........
Simply put: More cars = more accidents. Less police presence on the roads = more crap/uninsured/wreckless drivers = more accidents. However, speeding criminals (not mutually exclusive terms) = revenue. A-ha
If we're going to be honest, everyone breaks the speed limit (even the police). The police know it, we know it, the government knows it. Everyone speeds. They won't raise the speed limit because that would give people an excuse to go even faster (breaking the speed limit even more). I shouldn't worry. The complete lack of police on our roads means that you can do what you like without any consequences. Until they differentiate between speeding and crap driving, we have a problem. An inexperienced driver travelling down a residential road in a 4x4 is dangerous. An experience driver in a high performance car doing 130mph on a deserted motorway isn't. I see the difference. They don't.
I don't know when it was introduced, but the 70mph speed limit was introduced a long time ago. Since then the technology of cars braking systems and tyre technology has moved on enormously. Apparently the josworths in the civil service haven't. Let's think of a way to make law breakers out of citizens who are behaving responsibly , and appropriately for the situation. The we can fine them and generate revenue, give them points on their licences etc, generally criminalise them.........
Simply put: More cars = more accidents. Less police presence on the roads = more crap/uninsured/wreckless drivers = more accidents. However, speeding criminals (not mutually exclusive terms) = revenue. A-ha
If we're going to be honest, everyone breaks the speed limit (even the police). The police know it, we know it, the government knows it. Everyone speeds. They won't raise the speed limit because that would give people an excuse to go even faster (breaking the speed limit even more). I shouldn't worry. The complete lack of police on our roads means that you can do what you like without any consequences. Until they differentiate between speeding and crap driving, we have a problem. An inexperienced driver travelling down a residential road in a 4x4 is dangerous. An experience driver in a high performance car doing 130mph on a deserted motorway isn't. I see the difference. They don't.
sadako said:
To sum this up, How can we deal with this?
Every Pistonhead should voice their views via the above website, just do it and point out the flawed logic in TRLs proposals...
Apathy is going to lose us the battle, cos Transport2000 etc never flag in their relentless battle against cars, motorcycles...they are fanatics and we must be too - so please make sure you read what the TRL is proposing!
Join the ABD, and make sure you see Paul's Safespeed website.
Whenever a speedlimit is to be lowered, they council has to 'publish' this before it can take place - make sure you keep an eye out for these, and make sure if it's unreasonable then object!
Hypothetically.... (as I am sad enough to be wading through this morass of drivel, and contemplating para. 37)... what if the mean speed of traffic on a particular road, during the time that a survey was carried out, was found to be ABOVE the 85%ile? Would the limit be raised, as indeed it ought to be, if they are to apply that kind of logic? Or would the figures be quietly massaged by the jobsworth who initiated the study? On the whole, that document makes a deal of sense from a long-term, improve the accident statistics by means other than driver education, restricting acces to powerful cars etc methods.
In practice many roads may suffer no changes, where there is no more than an occasional incident (I won't use accident). However you can bet your life that many a good thraping road will be butchered out of all recognition, with chicanes, signs and christ-knows what else, followed by scameras when those of us who know how to, adapt our driving accordingly
Ultimately there will be more cases of driver frustration, with paople getting stuck behind grandad, pulling out to overtake at an inappropriate moment and having a head-on.
So the figures won't really change then, will they
Oh look: Para. 67 and 68:
"Lower speeds benefit all urban road users" - what bollocks. How the hell does me driving at 20 mph, when I have a job to do, and need to be somewhere else soon, with clients whining down the phone, benefit me or anyone else?
"[paraphrasing]Over 90% of pedestrian and cyclist casualties occur on urban roads"
Er... maybe that's because that's where most of them move around?
Many of them contributing to their own demise, such as the w@nkers on bikes who ride where the hell they want, let's say the wrong way round a roundabout (as one did earlier) with no lights? Pedestrians who just CAN'T possibly wait 4 seconds till my van goes past but have to run across in front of it, evidently keen to try out hospital food? Para. 88: "45% of serious or fatal road casualties and more than half of road deaths occur on rural roads... speed is a major factor".
R-i-g-h-t. With you now. Speed kills. Not incompetence, the basic inability to be able to handle a vehicle properly on anything other than an industrial estate. Maybe a better solution would be to restrict access to these kinds of roads to drivers over 25, or not allow cars of more than 14hp until you've had a year's experience?
Para 76, reference 20 mph limits: "[paraphrasing again] These 20 mph areas should be where the traffic is generally already doing 20 mph due to the general nature of the location or traffic calming measures in place"
So why does it ALSO need a 20 mph limit, you twats?
I wish I had a job where I could dream up bullshit all day long, and then find I go down in history for pissing off significant numbers of people.
Ian
>> Edited by wedg1e on Friday 10th December 03:27
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff