Crazy justification for 50mph speed limits
Discussion
I'm sure I heard this right.
On the news last night there was a report about the governments new push to reduce speed limits on A roads to 50mph, and some speed limits near schools to 20mph. You may have all seen it.
What I found really, really stupid about the whole thing (well, apart from the whole idea being daft) was the justification that someone gave for doing this. Their words were along the lines of 'well with a 50mph limit the chances of dying in a head-on collision are reduced'.
What the hell!!!
Why not spend the time and money educating drivers better and invest more money in more traffic police?
I can't believe that people are justifying the cut in limits because it helps when you have a head-on crash. Why not stop the fools that cause these accidents in the first place!
The mind boggles, it really does. What on earth is happening to our country??!!
In typical fashion they also had the mother of a victim of a 'speed related' death on. Now, I really feel for this woman because her daughter's death was horrible and I wouldn't wish it on anyone, but nothing else was said about the cause. Was she hit by a speeding drink driver? Was she in the car with a drugged up speeder going the wrong way down the road?
The poor lady could only muster the words 'they say that reducing the speed limit will cut deaths by 30%'. Will it really??
Also, where do they get these statistics from that say that reductions in speed limits have cut deaths by 75%. They never ever tell you where these stats come from do they!
Oh well, morning rant over.
On the news last night there was a report about the governments new push to reduce speed limits on A roads to 50mph, and some speed limits near schools to 20mph. You may have all seen it.
What I found really, really stupid about the whole thing (well, apart from the whole idea being daft) was the justification that someone gave for doing this. Their words were along the lines of 'well with a 50mph limit the chances of dying in a head-on collision are reduced'.
What the hell!!!
Why not spend the time and money educating drivers better and invest more money in more traffic police?
I can't believe that people are justifying the cut in limits because it helps when you have a head-on crash. Why not stop the fools that cause these accidents in the first place!
The mind boggles, it really does. What on earth is happening to our country??!!
In typical fashion they also had the mother of a victim of a 'speed related' death on. Now, I really feel for this woman because her daughter's death was horrible and I wouldn't wish it on anyone, but nothing else was said about the cause. Was she hit by a speeding drink driver? Was she in the car with a drugged up speeder going the wrong way down the road?
The poor lady could only muster the words 'they say that reducing the speed limit will cut deaths by 30%'. Will it really??
Also, where do they get these statistics from that say that reductions in speed limits have cut deaths by 75%. They never ever tell you where these stats come from do they!
Oh well, morning rant over.
funkyrobot said:
The mind boggles, it really does. What on earth is happening to our country??!!
It's f
ked. We need to outlaw socialism - it simply does not work.On the plus side, if the 40 everywhere brigade realise that a white circle with a line through it means 50, the
s might speed up a touch...XitUp said:
I think they should lower the speed limit near schools during the day. I'm more than happy to have speed cameras in built up areas.
I don't understand why people are crying about them lowering the limit though. I don't stick to the limit now so changing it won't do anything.
Until they stick SPECS everywhere at appalling expense, which clapton knows we can ill afford.I don't understand why people are crying about them lowering the limit though. I don't stick to the limit now so changing it won't do anything.
Puggit said:
Fezant Pluckah said:
I heard Jim Fitzpatrick, the Roads Minister, on the news last night say that only 30% of deaths on the roads are caused by speeding. Why are they not trageting the causes of the other 70%? 
I think you'll find it's 3% - he was telling porkies.Tackling speed GENERATES money via fines.
Taclking anything else COSTS money via actual wages for policemen etc.
Any reason provided by The Government is spin, pure and simple.
Shar2 said:
Fezant Pluckah said:
I heard Jim Fitzpatrick, the Roads Minister, on the news last night say that only 30% of deaths on the roads are caused by speeding. Why are they not trageting the causes of the other 70%?
'cause it's too difficult, (in their eyes), and doesn't make money.mrmr96 said:
Puggit said:
Fezant Pluckah said:
I heard Jim Fitzpatrick, the Roads Minister, on the news last night say that only 30% of deaths on the roads are caused by speeding. Why are they not trageting the causes of the other 70%?
I think you'll find it's 3% - he was telling porkies.Tackling speed GENERATES money via fines.
Taclking anything else COSTS money via actual wages for policemen etc.
Any reason provided by The Government is spin, pure and simple.
Oakey said:
Is it correct there are only 3000 road fatalities a year? If so, and I'm not misunderstood, why on earth are we all being penalised for what is, to be blunt, a rather insiginificant figure?
ISTR that one source (at least) has put the total cost to the taxpayer of a fatal road accient at close to £1m. If true, those 3000 road deaths could cost close to £2bn or so (making a rough guess at the ratio of individual deaths to fatal collisions).That is probably a fairly key driver (ah-hem) for any attempt to reduce road deaths. But I do agree that, if speeding is not the problem, what is, and why aren't we tackling it?
skwdenyer said:
ISTR that one source (at least) has put the total cost to the taxpayer of a fatal road accient at close to £1m. If true, those 3000 road deaths could cost close to £2bn or so (making a rough guess at the ratio of individual deaths to fatal collisions).
IN which case we can invest in more Trafpol and actually do something about the dangerous driving which causes accidents?Bing o said:
funkyrobot said:
The mind boggles, it really does. What on earth is happening to our country??!!
It's fked. We need to outlaw socialism - it simply does not work.On the plus side, if the 40 everywhere brigade realise that a white circle with a line through it means 50, the
s might speed up a touch...
Will somebody else point out the irony for Bing omrmr96 said:
skwdenyer said:
ISTR that one source (at least) has put the total cost to the taxpayer of a fatal road accient at close to £1m.
How's that then? And how much of that is an incremental cost (i.e. a cost which would not have been incurred had the accident not occured.)Puggit said:
Fezant Pluckah said:
I heard Jim Fitzpatrick, the Roads Minister, on the news last night say that only 30% of deaths on the roads are caused by speeding. Why are they not trageting the causes of the other 70%?
I think you'll find it's 3% - he was telling porkies.i.e. the guy/gal was driving fast AND went through the red lights/veered across a dual carriage way etc.
philthy said:
Bing o said:
funkyrobot said:
The mind boggles, it really does. What on earth is happening to our country??!!
It's fked. We need to outlaw socialism - it simply does not work.On the plus side, if the 40 everywhere brigade realise that a white circle with a line through it means 50, the
s might speed up a touch... Will somebody else point out the irony for Bing oDriving through Suffolk on Sunday we hit a dual carriageway with a 50 MPH limit and an "accident site" speed camera. Just a few yards up the road from the speed camera was a rather dodgy junction where a car would have to go over said dual carriageway, and people coming out of the junction on the other side only had a small bit of space so there was no way to get up to some before pulling out.
Looking at it (I'm probably not explaining it right) it seemed to me that THAT would be the scene of the accident, in which case speed would have no bearing on it and instead what would be needed was a better junction (or possibly a roundabout since there was another junction on the other side of the dual carriageway so it was basically a crossroads where one road had simply been expanded).
But of course, don't let that stop them trying to get a bit of money out of it.
Looking at it (I'm probably not explaining it right) it seemed to me that THAT would be the scene of the accident, in which case speed would have no bearing on it and instead what would be needed was a better junction (or possibly a roundabout since there was another junction on the other side of the dual carriageway so it was basically a crossroads where one road had simply been expanded).
But of course, don't let that stop them trying to get a bit of money out of it.
MentalSarcasm said:
Driving through Suffolk on Sunday we hit a dual carriageway with a 50 MPH limit and an "accident site" speed camera. Just a few yards up the road from the speed camera was a rather dodgy junction where a car would have to go over said dual carriageway, and people coming out of the junction on the other side only had a small bit of space so there was no way to get up to some before pulling out.
Looking at it (I'm probably not explaining it right) it seemed to me that THAT would be the scene of the accident, in which case speed would have no bearing on it and instead what would be needed was a better junction (or possibly a roundabout since there was another junction on the other side of the dual carriageway so it was basically a crossroads where one road had simply been expanded).
But of course, don't let that stop them trying to get a bit of money out of it.
Ah but it would be a factor. I believe that when a report is filed by the police the officer can write that the vehicle was traveling at speeds too high for the conditions/situation. That may be as low 10 mph total speed but if its in his report then the camera comes out and maybe the speed limit goes down rather than a more sensible (and more expensive) redesign of the junction itself.Looking at it (I'm probably not explaining it right) it seemed to me that THAT would be the scene of the accident, in which case speed would have no bearing on it and instead what would be needed was a better junction (or possibly a roundabout since there was another junction on the other side of the dual carriageway so it was basically a crossroads where one road had simply been expanded).
But of course, don't let that stop them trying to get a bit of money out of it.
You'll all love this - basically a local group (could have been the Parish Council) asked the LA to install a 'corner' sign on one of the Country roads near our village. It is an absolute bd of a corner, even in the Exige it's 40mph or ditch (up-hill, 90 degree right, all sorts of camber, uneven surface etc). Yet as there's only been one serious accident at the location in the past god knows how long, the request has been turned down. Of course, when a mother does pile into that corner with her SUV, spilling her guts and those of her children all over the road, perhaps we'll then get a speed enforcement camera.
Elsewhere in the County, a Councillor's daughter crashed her car on an A road the other year. She effectively left a straight bit of road, and parked her car in a field with no ill-effect - probably playing with her radio, or herself, who knows. However, somehow, the calls for the limits to be reduced to 50mph were heard and the NSL has been abolished.
Treat people like idiots, and they'll act like idiots.
d of a corner, even in the Exige it's 40mph or ditch (up-hill, 90 degree right, all sorts of camber, uneven surface etc). Yet as there's only been one serious accident at the location in the past god knows how long, the request has been turned down. Of course, when a mother does pile into that corner with her SUV, spilling her guts and those of her children all over the road, perhaps we'll then get a speed enforcement camera.Elsewhere in the County, a Councillor's daughter crashed her car on an A road the other year. She effectively left a straight bit of road, and parked her car in a field with no ill-effect - probably playing with her radio, or herself, who knows. However, somehow, the calls for the limits to be reduced to 50mph were heard and the NSL has been abolished.
Treat people like idiots, and they'll act like idiots.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff