Speed Limits: The Elephant In The Room
Discussion
The thing is that health and safety cannot be applied to the wide world of transport unless and until the elephant in the room is addressed and acknowledged.
Health and safety is based on the tenet that risks can be controlled and managed to reduce accidents to zero.
It is possible to introduce controls so draconian (2mph speed limit, say) that this could quite easily be achieved but the cost would be the breakdown of society when food could not be delivered to the shops fast enough. Also, of course, the people would (I hope) simply ignore such a ludicrous limit.
So it’s not going to happen.
When somebody dies in a transport accident whether it be a child who runs out between parked cars or a plane load of souls vanish into the ocean it is a tragedy.
If it’s somebody you know, your brother, your lover, your teacher then it really hurts and you feel really sad.
But unless you die in a media friendly manner - fireball on motorway! plane missing! train ploughs into concourse! - then nobody will even hear about it, let alone give it even a moments thought.
How many people died on UK roads yesterday? Nobody knows. And, let’s be honest, unless they were your relatives/friends, nobody cares. If I recall correctly there are around 2000 fatalities a year, so about 5/6 a day. Every day.
And the thing is…the elephant in the room is…
We are quite happy with the number of people killed every year. It’s a price we pay to have food on the shelves, to take our kids to school, to live the lives we do.
And if we are quite happy with the number of people sacrificed to the need for speed, the desire to live in a world where transport and speed bring us the things we want and take us to the places we want to go to then why not turn the whole argument on its’ head?
I say: Lets increase speed limits until such time as we see an unacceptable rise in the number of fatalities.
Health and safety is based on the tenet that risks can be controlled and managed to reduce accidents to zero.
It is possible to introduce controls so draconian (2mph speed limit, say) that this could quite easily be achieved but the cost would be the breakdown of society when food could not be delivered to the shops fast enough. Also, of course, the people would (I hope) simply ignore such a ludicrous limit.
So it’s not going to happen.
When somebody dies in a transport accident whether it be a child who runs out between parked cars or a plane load of souls vanish into the ocean it is a tragedy.
If it’s somebody you know, your brother, your lover, your teacher then it really hurts and you feel really sad.
But unless you die in a media friendly manner - fireball on motorway! plane missing! train ploughs into concourse! - then nobody will even hear about it, let alone give it even a moments thought.
How many people died on UK roads yesterday? Nobody knows. And, let’s be honest, unless they were your relatives/friends, nobody cares. If I recall correctly there are around 2000 fatalities a year, so about 5/6 a day. Every day.
And the thing is…the elephant in the room is…
We are quite happy with the number of people killed every year. It’s a price we pay to have food on the shelves, to take our kids to school, to live the lives we do.
And if we are quite happy with the number of people sacrificed to the need for speed, the desire to live in a world where transport and speed bring us the things we want and take us to the places we want to go to then why not turn the whole argument on its’ head?
I say: Lets increase speed limits until such time as we see an unacceptable rise in the number of fatalities.
Voldemort said:
We are quite happy with the number of people killed every year. It’s a price we pay to have food on the shelves, to take our kids to school, to live the lives we do.
And you know this how? That's quite a massive assumption to make. I for one am not "happy" with the number of people killed on our roads each year. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz said:
What makes you think that speed limits are unacceptably low in the opinion of the majority of road users?
The true elephant in the room is that Pistonheaders who like to drive quickly seem to think they are somehow representative of society as a whole.
Oh I don't know, have you ever driven on a motorway? What proportion of cars are doing 70 or less?The true elephant in the room is that Pistonheaders who like to drive quickly seem to think they are somehow representative of society as a whole.
The limits I as a Pistonheader would make like to see raised are the ones so low that sticking to the limit results in other members of 'society' sticking on my bumper in the hope of intimidating me into going faster. Or perhaps these characters genuinely think they can get to their parents wedding quicker by tailgating.
I suspect that if PHers do object to low limits more than others, it's probably because we notice them more and often stick to them more. The 40 everywhere brigade often genuinely don't realise they are breaking the limit and assume everyone who does is a hooligan.
I suspect that if PHers do object to low limits more than others, it's probably because we notice them more and often stick to them more. The 40 everywhere brigade often genuinely don't realise they are breaking the limit and assume everyone who does is a hooligan.
I think the majority of drivers would probably agree with the following re speed limits:-
(1) 30mph is perfectly sensible in towns. Anything higher would involve an unacceptable increase in risk to pedestrians for only a minor increase in speed and convenience for drivers.
(2) 60mph is probably about right for most A and B roads. 50mph (or even 40mph) limits on these roads have nothing to do with safety and are just there to allow speed cameras to rake in some money. Most people completely ignore the 50mph signs in NSL areas, driving at 55mph (just as they do in 60mph areas). Huge swathes of very good and safe A roads now have 50mph limits, so they must (quite mysteriously) have become dangerous over time, having been perfectly safe for decades.
(3) 70mph is far too slow for a motorway in good conditions. A top limit of 90 or 85mph adjusted down during high-traffic periods or bad conditions to 60 or 70 would probably be acceptable to most people and would have a negligible impact (if any) on the frequency of accidents.
Brake and other fools no longer think it appropriate to allow drivers any discretion and judgment as to the appropriate speed, so want the limit at the safe speed in bad conditions and with the worst imaginable driver. 40mph in NSLs can only make sense on that basis.
We put up with unrealistic motorway limits in the interests of preventing a few survivable crashes becoming fatal. And I mean "a few". I bet a credible estimate of the increase in fatalities if we went from 70 to 85mph on motorways is literally in the 10s per year - most high speed accidents involve drivers who would exceed whatever limit was in place and/or are driving in a way that means the accident would occur and be lethal at any likely speed limit. The only real difference is the relatively few accidents in which someone driving properly at 70 is suddenly involved in an incident that would be survivable at that speed but not if going faster, such as a lorry suddenly moving into your path at 30mph.
(1) 30mph is perfectly sensible in towns. Anything higher would involve an unacceptable increase in risk to pedestrians for only a minor increase in speed and convenience for drivers.
(2) 60mph is probably about right for most A and B roads. 50mph (or even 40mph) limits on these roads have nothing to do with safety and are just there to allow speed cameras to rake in some money. Most people completely ignore the 50mph signs in NSL areas, driving at 55mph (just as they do in 60mph areas). Huge swathes of very good and safe A roads now have 50mph limits, so they must (quite mysteriously) have become dangerous over time, having been perfectly safe for decades.
(3) 70mph is far too slow for a motorway in good conditions. A top limit of 90 or 85mph adjusted down during high-traffic periods or bad conditions to 60 or 70 would probably be acceptable to most people and would have a negligible impact (if any) on the frequency of accidents.
Brake and other fools no longer think it appropriate to allow drivers any discretion and judgment as to the appropriate speed, so want the limit at the safe speed in bad conditions and with the worst imaginable driver. 40mph in NSLs can only make sense on that basis.
We put up with unrealistic motorway limits in the interests of preventing a few survivable crashes becoming fatal. And I mean "a few". I bet a credible estimate of the increase in fatalities if we went from 70 to 85mph on motorways is literally in the 10s per year - most high speed accidents involve drivers who would exceed whatever limit was in place and/or are driving in a way that means the accident would occur and be lethal at any likely speed limit. The only real difference is the relatively few accidents in which someone driving properly at 70 is suddenly involved in an incident that would be survivable at that speed but not if going faster, such as a lorry suddenly moving into your path at 30mph.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz said:
What makes you think that speed limits are unacceptably low in the opinion of the majority of road users?
The true elephant in the room is that Pistonheaders who like to drive quickly seem to think they are somehow representative of society as a whole.
I dont know if it is the eyes of the majority of road users nationwide but it surely is in the eyes of the road users I see on the stretches of road I use. Almost everyone breaks these arbitrary speed limits. The true elephant in the room is that Pistonheaders who like to drive quickly seem to think they are somehow representative of society as a whole.
I was once on the M25 running too early to pick up a friend from the airport. I decided to slow things down as I didnt want to pay for short stay (cheapskate, I know). I set my cruise control to 65mph and it was obviously too slow as everything that cam up behind me just pulled out and overtook. I nudgd it up to 70mph and it was still the same, cars flying past and disappearing.
On the major local road near me, no one drives at 30, it is ridiculously slow. There is a stretch where I once spotted a camera a long long time ago so I tend to always slow down to 30mph when going through. When I do this, I get cars flashing their ights at me or hinking. Most times other drivers just pull out and overtake me.
Something I hear a lot on here. "Everyone does it or the majority do". Over 70 that is. I pass a lot of cars in my van, limited to 55. I pass a more in my car, I stick to 70 seeing as I have to pay for my commute petrol, it works out the best speed. I get passed by a few as well and I see the country drag along at rush hours where the average speed is a snails pace.
But I have never seen any figures backing up the 70+ or 80+ is the norm. Genuine question, but I think it is what some would prefer to think and use to further their cause.
But I have never seen any figures backing up the 70+ or 80+ is the norm. Genuine question, but I think it is what some would prefer to think and use to further their cause.
The UK is fixated on the term 'speeding' and is used by many pressure groups in my opinion not for the primary purpose of safety, but for the purpose of increasing their property values.
A simple comparison of yearly fatalities on the roads with the widespread drug use of alcohol in the UK will show you how disproportionate the focus is on 'speeding'.
Compare that again to where 'speeding' was the primary cause of a road fatality or serious injury and again the numbers are miniscule in comparison to the majority of other daily 'things' that cause an unintended death/injury.
But it seems the media, pressure groups and government don't act as aggressively on many other common causes of deaths as they do with speeding and speed limits. (In my opinion of course).
A simple comparison of yearly fatalities on the roads with the widespread drug use of alcohol in the UK will show you how disproportionate the focus is on 'speeding'.
Compare that again to where 'speeding' was the primary cause of a road fatality or serious injury and again the numbers are miniscule in comparison to the majority of other daily 'things' that cause an unintended death/injury.
But it seems the media, pressure groups and government don't act as aggressively on many other common causes of deaths as they do with speeding and speed limits. (In my opinion of course).
jmorgan said:
Something I hear a lot on here. "Everyone does it or the majority do". Over 70 that is. I pass a lot of cars in my van, limited to 55. I pass a more in my car, I stick to 70 seeing as I have to pay for my commute petrol, it works out the best speed. I get passed by a few as well and I see the country drag along at rush hours where the average speed is a snails pace.
But I have never seen any figures backing up the 70+ or 80+ is the norm. Genuine question, but I think it is what some would prefer to think and use to further their cause.
I read somewhere a while back that the average speed for a car on UK motorways (with nothing in its way) is in the low 80s.But I have never seen any figures backing up the 70+ or 80+ is the norm. Genuine question, but I think it is what some would prefer to think and use to further their cause.
Go up North where there aren't many cars and see what speeds people actually want to drive at - you will get left standing at anything under 85.
ORD said:
I think the majority of drivers would probably agree with the following re speed limits:-
(1) 30mph is perfectly sensible in towns. Anything higher would involve an unacceptable increase in risk to pedestrians for only a minor increase in speed and convenience for drivers.
(
But if the majority of drivers agree with the 30 limit, isn't this just another way of saying they would stick to 30 anyway?(1) 30mph is perfectly sensible in towns. Anything higher would involve an unacceptable increase in risk to pedestrians for only a minor increase in speed and convenience for drivers.
(
Certainly it's not true to say that raising a speed limit necessarily leads to an increase in either speeds or accidents.
sugerbear said:
If EVERYONE ALWAYS drove at the speed limit would accidents fall or rise.
Answer that question then come back with your elephant.
Who knows? But I'm sure people in their thousands will still die and society will still regard those deaths as an acceptable price to pay for mass transport of all kinds.Answer that question then come back with your elephant.
ORD said:
jmorgan said:
Something I hear a lot on here. "Everyone does it or the majority do". Over 70 that is. I pass a lot of cars in my van, limited to 55. I pass a more in my car, I stick to 70 seeing as I have to pay for my commute petrol, it works out the best speed. I get passed by a few as well and I see the country drag along at rush hours where the average speed is a snails pace.
But I have never seen any figures backing up the 70+ or 80+ is the norm. Genuine question, but I think it is what some would prefer to think and use to further their cause.
I read somewhere a while back that the average speed for a car on UK motorways (with nothing in its way) is in the low 80s.But I have never seen any figures backing up the 70+ or 80+ is the norm. Genuine question, but I think it is what some would prefer to think and use to further their cause.
Go up North where there aren't many cars and see what speeds people actually want to drive at - you will get left standing at anything under 85.
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-set...
Voldemort said:
The thing is that health and safety cannot be applied to the wide world of transport unless and until the elephant in the room is addressed and acknowledged.
Health and safety is based on the tenet that risks can be controlled and managed to reduce accidents to zero.
It is possible to introduce controls so draconian (2mph speed limit, say) that this could quite easily be achieved but the cost would be the breakdown of society when food could not be delivered to the shops fast enough. Also, of course, the people would (I hope) simply ignore such a ludicrous limit.
So it’s not going to happen.
When somebody dies in a transport accident whether it be a child who runs out between parked cars or a plane load of souls vanish into the ocean it is a tragedy.
If it’s somebody you know, your brother, your lover, your teacher then it really hurts and you feel really sad.
But unless you die in a media friendly manner - fireball on motorway! plane missing! train ploughs into concourse! - then nobody will even hear about it, let alone give it even a moments thought.
How many people died on UK roads yesterday? Nobody knows. And, let’s be honest, unless they were your relatives/friends, nobody cares. If I recall correctly there are around 2000 fatalities a year, so about 5/6 a day. Every day.
And the thing is…the elephant in the room is…
We are quite happy with the number of people killed every year. It’s a price we pay to have food on the shelves, to take our kids to school, to live the lives we do.
And if we are quite happy with the number of people sacrificed to the need for speed, the desire to live in a world where transport and speed bring us the things we want and take us to the places we want to go to then why not turn the whole argument on its’ head?
I say: Lets increase speed limits until such time as we see an unacceptable rise in the number of fatalities.
Is it really? I think it is to control and manage risk not to achieve zero. Health and safety is based on the tenet that risks can be controlled and managed to reduce accidents to zero.
It is possible to introduce controls so draconian (2mph speed limit, say) that this could quite easily be achieved but the cost would be the breakdown of society when food could not be delivered to the shops fast enough. Also, of course, the people would (I hope) simply ignore such a ludicrous limit.
So it’s not going to happen.
When somebody dies in a transport accident whether it be a child who runs out between parked cars or a plane load of souls vanish into the ocean it is a tragedy.
If it’s somebody you know, your brother, your lover, your teacher then it really hurts and you feel really sad.
But unless you die in a media friendly manner - fireball on motorway! plane missing! train ploughs into concourse! - then nobody will even hear about it, let alone give it even a moments thought.
How many people died on UK roads yesterday? Nobody knows. And, let’s be honest, unless they were your relatives/friends, nobody cares. If I recall correctly there are around 2000 fatalities a year, so about 5/6 a day. Every day.
And the thing is…the elephant in the room is…
We are quite happy with the number of people killed every year. It’s a price we pay to have food on the shelves, to take our kids to school, to live the lives we do.
And if we are quite happy with the number of people sacrificed to the need for speed, the desire to live in a world where transport and speed bring us the things we want and take us to the places we want to go to then why not turn the whole argument on its’ head?
I say: Lets increase speed limits until such time as we see an unacceptable rise in the number of fatalities.
Voldemort said:
Health and safety is based on the tenet that risks can be controlled and managed to reduce accidents to zero.
No it isn't, it is based on risk assessment and reducing a parameter (people killed, lost time injuries, environmental damage or whatever) down to an acceptable and low level. Zero is not possible; health and safety does not assume or require zero to be possible. Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff