View Full Version : Road speed limit cut to 50mph ?
papa smurf
08-03-2009, 09:54
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/driving/article5864847.ece
here we go again ,might as well get a tricycle and make every one happy .
THE government is to cut the national speed limit from 60mph to 50mph on most of Britain’s roads, enforced by a new generation of average speed cameras.[from the article]
...we are killing 3,000 people a year on our roads, it would be irresponsible not to do something about it.
I agree wholeheartedly. There aren't many journeys that can't be made at a safer speed.
Mick Fisher
08-03-2009, 10:51
The cameras ain't making as much money as they thought they would.
I agree wholeheartedly. There aren't many journeys that can't be made at a safer speed.
Spoken like a true non-driver!
So once we've got everyone in the UK down to 15mph, what do we do about making roads safer regarding incidents that don't involve speed?
"we are killing 3,000 people a year on our roads"
That doesn't even come close to the 6,500 that died from hospital superbug infections.
Seems to me that someone is taking the easy and remunerative option.
Just another money making scheme thought up by ministers desperate to make more money penalising the motorist, the clue is in this quote
Ministers plan to use average speed cameras, which monitor speeds over distances of up to six miles
Measuring speeds over 6 miles will have fines pouring in and probably cause more shunts as cars box together on long journeys, well thought out by idiots without a clue.
Measuring speeds over 6 miles will have fines pouring in and probably cause more shunts as cars box together on long journeys, well thought out by idiots without a clue.
As long as we get that nasty speed down then it just doesn't matter.
swoop101
08-03-2009, 11:37
Instead of cutting speed limits, why don't they do more to get the idiotic pedestrians and cyclists to look out and protect themselves.
I am sick and tired of the behaviour of some walkers/runners/cyclists who just go straight across the road without looking or showing any basic interest in their own safety.
Although with another thought, at least there should be less of them if they all get squashed.
Nothing more than yet another tax on the motorist. It's only effect will be to **** of even more voting motorist's
As long as we get that nasty speed down then it just doesn't matter.
I suspect the next bit legislation will be having a man walking in front with a Red Flag so we do not scare pedestrians, non-drivers and horse's, and possibly ringing a bell shouting "Unclean! Unclean! "
papa smurf
08-03-2009, 11:54
Instead of cutting speed limits, why don't they do more to get the idiotic pedestrians and cyclists to look out and protect themselves.
I am sick and tired of the behaviour of some walkers/runners/cyclists who just go straight across the road without looking or showing any basic interest in their own safety.
Although with another thought, at least there should be less of them if they all get squashed.
oh please don't get me started about cyclists,[most of which seem to have a death wish ]
Charlie_Bubble
08-03-2009, 12:05
As I braked to avoid hitting a middle-aged woman running across the road in Guildford yesterday, I wondered if she would be happy sacrificing her life to save 30 seconds saved walking to and waiting for the crossing which was just 10 metres away. She was only 1 of about 3 or 4 people in a half mile drive to pick up my Mrs that risked their lives for the sake of a few seconds.
Raistlin
08-03-2009, 12:17
Good isn't it? Every year cars get safer, brakes and tyres more efficient, and the Government more bloody stupid!
Good isn't it? Every year cars get safer, brakes and tyres more efficient, and the Government more bloody stupid!
Cars could get progressively safer in to infinity but that still doesn't deal with the brain donor at the wheel who doesn't care about rules of the road. The safer you make the car, the less responsibilty the driver will feel he has.
It's not speeding we need to deal with, it's driving attitudes and ability.
Raistlin
08-03-2009, 12:25
Agreed.
I went shopping yesterday, was nearly run off the road 3 times by idiots coming around corners half on my side of the road half on theirs. I got cut up twice on roundabouts by people in the wrong lane. Had to stand in front of someone's car in the carpark to stop it rolling forward and hitting other cars whilst Mrs-M-to-be went to put a tannoy call out for the driver because they'd left their handbrake off.
None of these incidents was caused by speed, they were all caused by the fact that the idiots behind the wheel should never have been given a damn driving licence in the first place.
Just another money making scheme thought up by ministers desperate to make more money penalising the motorist, the clue is in this quote
Ministers plan to use average speed cameras, which monitor speeds over distances of up to six miles
Measuring speeds over 6 miles will have fines pouring in and probably cause more shunts as cars box together on long journeys, well thought out by idiots without a clue.
And cause major tailbacks, if you have one car doing 50MPH the car behind him is doing 45MPH if you've got quite a few cars following the car at the back will be stood, this is caused on the motorway when you see the matrix signs saying 50MPH, it will cause loads of tailbacks because it's causing a knock back effect with the traffic.
If they upped the speed limit there's be no tailbacks whatsoever. Do they have tailbacks in Germany?
Raistlin
08-03-2009, 12:40
[...]if you have one car doing 50MPH the car behind him is doing 45MPH [...]
Actually, assuming a constant gap between the two cars the car behind the lead car would/could actually be doing the same speed.
This has to be true otherwise nobody would ever get anywhere.
What actually causes the phantom stoppages/tailbacks on motorways is people not paying attention. One person hits the brakes, the person behind them hits the brakes a little harder because they were travelling too close or not paying attention therefore they slow down more, then the next person does the same, and so on.
Sorry but how can it be a tax on the motorist unless the motorist takes it on thier own back to break the law???
:rolleyes:
Now before anyone starts on me for the above line I'm for higher speed limits, especially on roads that are not dangerous... Perhaps then instead of a blanket lowering they should look at regrading dangerous roads down and non-dangerous roads (especially those away from habitation) up... I'm sure that this would reduce rat-runs and guide traffic away from slower roads in lived in areas...
Why is it when only a small percentage of road deaths are directly attributable to speed so much emphasis is placed on this one aspect of motoring, if for no other reason than revenue generation.
If it were targeted on built areas where the people are it would make sense but the open road with nothing but other vehicles is so daft.
Getting the drink drivers off the road should be the main priority not these accident creating cheap options.
Why not target the lunatics that don't look or consider other road users or those who are unsafe drivers whether at speed or not. Or those who think the indicators are just ornaments or who expect the rest of us to be psychic.
Why is it with all the cameras we have (3 for every 20 miles of road) accidents are increasing. Until there are more police involved in road traffic management accident levels will not reduce.
Sorry but how can it be a tax on the motorist unless the motorist takes it on their own back to break the law???
The problems arise when they set a system that will make it easy for the average person to exceed the average speed set. Over 6 miles in a urban area will be lead to the average motorist spending more time worrying about his speed than driving the ruddy car. That in my eyes is a tax
idi banashapan
08-03-2009, 13:13
I don't see why this is being applied to A roads - generally speaking, there shouldn't be any pedestrians about. If there are pedestrians walking up an A road, maybe they deserve to be hit for being so bloody stupid.
Second to that, country roads, that also have a 60mph limit, can be dangerous at that speed. this is why it's down to the driver to take into consideration a speed that suits the conditions, be them visibility, weather, cornering, etc. you don't HAVE to drive at 60mph. that said, people crawling along at 20mph can also cause accidents on country roads if someone drives around a low visibility corner that can easily flow at 40mph and rear ends them. so lack of speed can also be dangerous.
so, in conclusion;
speed doesn't kill - it's those who can't handle it/are irresponsible that do
lack of speed can kill - if you are not confident enough to drive at a reasonable speed, don't drive at all... you're putting others at risk.
more cameras mean more people suddenly hitting the brakes. the best thing that can be done if the government want to stop speed is have better police presence on the roads. camera locations are learned so people know when to slow down or to take a different route to avoid them if they want to go fast - they will still speed whatever. whereas you never know where you'll see the next police car, especially if they are unmarked.
cameras are stupid, but so are excessive speeders. the government will not stop either of them if they carry on in this way.
nomadking
08-03-2009, 13:14
Wasn't the first fatal casualty by a car happen where the vehicle was traveling at 4mph?
The overwhelming majority of people caught by speed cameras have not been in an accident as a result of that particular speeding 'offence', so 'normal' speeding can't be that dangerous as so many people do it without incident.
But surely not knowing what speed your doing in relation to the speed limit is careless driving???
You can't have it both ways ;)
---------- Post added at 13:22 ---------- Previous post was at 13:14 ----------
I don't think the speed campaigns are saying that speeding is the main cause of accidents, but the more speed a car is doing when it had an accident the more likely it it to casue injuries of fatalities..
But surely not knowing what speed your doing in relation to the speed limit is careless driving???
You can't have it both ways ;)
---------- Post added at 13:22 ---------- Previous post was at 13:14 ----------
I don't think the speed campaigns are saying that speeding is the main cause of accidents, but the more speed a car is doing when it had an accident the more likely it it to casue injuries of fatalities..
There does seem to be a disproportionate amount of effort being placed on eradicating speeding though, as opposed to other causes of accidents. If it was just about speeding then they'd be nailing all the bikers who love 'opening up' on long straight roads, doing speeds that some cars would only be able to dream about.
joglynne
08-03-2009, 13:32
A bit off topic but when I was taking an advanced driving course the Police driving instructor used to describe these pedestrians and vehicle using idiots as "Accidents looking for somewhere to happen."
I do wonder whether the whole lot of them are all totally oblivious of the danger they put themselves and others in to.
rogerdraig
08-03-2009, 13:53
allowing overtaking on the left on motorways ( just as it is on all other roads ( yep you heard right you can overtake on the left on any other road )) would reduce the effect that
as to this 50 idea its a money making thing our motorways and dual carriage ways are the safest roads in our country and in Europe
it would help if the midea actualy chalanged some of the anti speedig loby to prove thier case as the stats
see http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics/datatablespublications/accidents/casualtiesgbar/roadcasualtiesgreatbritain20071
see section 4 on left http://www.dft.gov.uk/172974/173025/221412/221549/227755/2856721/article4contributoryfa1.xls
show that exceeding the speed limit isnt the problem and as the motorways ect are already the safest roads this leaves the urban roads as the problem area
and that problem is in the main not to do with exceeding the limit but not driving in accordance with conditions
and pedestrians not looking before crossing
none of this would in any way be affected by a 50 limit
but hey it looks good and the speed is evil brigade love it
allowing overtaking on the left on motorways ( just as it is on all other roads ( yep you heard right you can overtake on the left on any other road )) would reduce the effect that
Most people don't even look to thier right properly for people overtaking beore they pull out, what hope would they have checking both sides :(
So, lets just make sure I understood this correctly.
Despite all the speed cameras installed over the last few years, accidents have gone up - and the anser is to lower the speed limit and use even more cameras ??
We truely are being run by idiots .......
broadbandking
08-03-2009, 14:24
Some of the roads by me that are National speed limit is stupid I welcome the speed decrease
rogerdraig
08-03-2009, 14:28
well as they seem to assume that changing the speed limit would make people obey the rule surely changing the rule on over taking would have the same effect ;)
seriously though if they spent as much time advertising such a change as they do on speed adverts the thing should sink in and it may get some of the more nervous drive to stay off the motorway :) ( win win there lol )
i do a lot of driving and he amount of time there are more vehicles in the third lane than the two others put together is silly
i think it would lead to less changing lanes and even further ( once it sinks in ) reduce accidents ( yes i agree short term it could take them up but i personally dont think that should stop it )
Spoken like a true non-driver!
So once we've got everyone in the UK down to 15mph, what do we do about making roads safer regarding incidents that don't involve speed?
I've been driving for decades.
I think the article said "50", not "15" mph. :rolleyes:
There is a lot of guff in this thread. Just a few thoughts:
There is a direct relationship between speed and the number of road casualties.
Reducing speed reduces the number of road casualties. Why do you think the limit is reduced outside schools?
Sure, poor driving is a major factor, but do you want to pay for a policeman on every road? Road speed is an important factor. Cameras are a cheap and efficient way to regulate road speed.
Finally, many of you are complaining about the inconvenience of having to drive at 10mph less than now. What about the inconvenience felt by the families of the 3000 road casualties per annum?
There is a direct relationship between speed and the number of road casualties.
Reducing speed reduces the number of road casualties. Why do you think the limit is reduced outside schools?
Let's centre on that for a moment. So once we've got all the limits down to something much more managable, say 15mph, what about other causes of accidents?
Sure, poor driving is a major factor, but do you want to pay for a policeman on every road? Road speed is an important factor. Cameras are a cheap and efficient way to regulate road speed.
Even though accidents have risen over the last 8 years? So you're suggesting we place other hazards as a low priority and go for the easy option instead?
---------- Post added at 15:44 ---------- Previous post was at 15:43 ----------
What about the inconvenience felt by the families of the 3000 road casualties per annum?
Were they all caused by speed?
Cameras are a cheap and efficient way to regulate road speed.
No they are a cheap way to tax motorists off the road it has no other reason to exist other than as a cash cow, that is the only reason for having the camera's at 6 mile intervals in order to catch you out, in doing so people will be concentrating more on their average speed than on the road leading to more accidents to add to the statistics because of blind bureaucratic stupidity.
nomadking
08-03-2009, 15:18
We truely are being run by idiots .......
You've just noticed this? ;)
Let's centre on that for a moment. So once we've got all the limits down to something much more managable, say 15mph, what about other causes of accidents?...
Where on earth did "15mph" come from?
Yes, other factors should be tackled, too. But why are you set against changing the national speed limit (last changed in 1977)? Cars have become more powerful since then, and there are many more on the road.
...Even though accidents have risen over the last 8 years? So you're suggesting we place other hazards as a low priority and go for the easy option instead?...
I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Who suggested placing other hazards on low priority?
...Were they all caused by speed?
No, of course not. But this seems to me to be a cheap and effective way to reduce the number of road casualties. Can you suggest an alternative?
---------- Post added at 15:24 ---------- Previous post was at 15:21 ----------
No they are a cheap way to tax motorists off the road ....
Taxation of motoring (road tax, fuel duty, etc) has increased, but car ownership is increasing. How is this getting motorists off the road?
Taxation of motoring (road tax, fuel duty, etc) has increased, but car ownership is increasing. How is this getting motorists off the road?
The fines include penalty points get 12 you are banned
The fines include penalty points get 12 you are banned
Which will remove from the road motorists who don't follow the rules.
Great! When does it start?
Where on earth did "15mph" come from?
Surely that's where the anti-car brigade wants the limit to be?
Yes, other factors should be tackled, too. But why are you set against changing the national speed limit (last changed in 1977)? Cars have become more powerful since then, and there are many more on the road.
They haven't become all that more powerful yet they're certainly a lot safer.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Who suggested placing other hazards on low priority?
I don't see such emphasis placed on reducing deaths caused by other methods.
No, of course not. But this seems to me to be a cheap and effective way to reduce the number of road casualties. Can you suggest an alternative?
Well it's not my place to do so but how about starting off with better education on road safety and hazard perception? 5 year retests (anually for the over 70s)? Narrowing roads on known blackspots?
---------- Post added at 16:33 ---------- Previous post was at 16:32 ----------
Which will remove from the road motorists who don't follow the rules.
No, it'll remove the ones that get caught.
Speed cameras do nothing except take photos.
Which will remove from the road motorists who don't follow the rules.
Great! When does it start?
No they are putting in average speed cameras over a distance of 6 miles purely to generate cash from the motorist and therefore will cause more crashes through a wrongly thought out system which will inevitably cause more accidents than it could ever possibly prevent.
Plus removing drivers who exceed the points quota will make them want to raise taxes on petrol and road tax to claw back what they lose, so once again drivers will be worse off.
Speed cameras do nothing except take photos.
Of people who are breaking the law.
No they are putting in average speed cameras over a distance of 6 miles purely to generate cash from the motorist ...
You two seem to be advocating that motorists should go over the speed limit!
Don't take my word for it - have a look at this excellent booklet (pdf) from the World Health Organisation called "Why Focus on Speed?"
http://www.who.int/roadsafety/projects/manuals/speed_manual/1-Why.pdf
Here are some quotes:
Speed has been identified as a key risk factor in road traffic injuries, influencing both the risk of road traffic crashes and the severity of the injuries that result from them ...
Higher speeds increase the risk of a crash for a number of reasons. It is more likely that a driver will lose control of the vehicle, fail to anticipate oncoming hazards in good time and also cause other road users to misjudge the speed of the vehicle....
...if the average speed on New Zealand’s rural roads were reduced by just 4 km/h, the total number of road crash deaths would decrease by about 15%...
...Studies provide direct evidence that speeds just 5 km/h above average in 60 km/h urban areas, and 10 km/h above average in rural areas, are sufficient to double the
risk of a casualty crash...
Can anyone provide a link demonstrating the benefits of driving at 60mph as opposed to 50mph?
The reduction , to be imposed as early as next year...
Will that be before or after the General Election.
If its before it would be unpopular and if its after well surely it will be up to the Conservative government.
Of people who are breaking the law.
And how exactly does that stop someone speeding in a stolen car? Or someone in an unfamiliar area who didn't even know there was a camera there or the limit was poorly mapped out?
It might stop them the next time they're out in the car but what if that original time is when they caused an accident and killed someone? Not much solace to the dead person's family..."oh don't worry, I'll be more careful next time".
You two seem to be advocating that motorists should go over the speed limit!
Just because we're pointing out the flaws in your argument doesn't mean we want to absolute opposite end of the scale.
Don't take my word for it - have a look at this excellent booklet (pdf) from the World Health Organisation called "Why Focus on Speed?"
Does it offer an explanation as to why accident numbers have not fallen despite the increased use of speed cameras in the UK?
papa smurf
08-03-2009, 16:06
Of people who are breaking the law.
You two seem to be advocating that motorists should go over the speed limit!
Don't take my word for it - have a look at this excellent booklet (pdf) from the World Health Organisation called "Why Focus on Speed?"
http://www.who.int/roadsafety/projects/manuals/speed_manual/1-Why.pdf
Here are some quotes:
Can anyone provide a link demonstrating the benefits of driving at 60mph as opposed to 50mph?
one arrives at ones destination quicker and happier due to the lack of frustration driving behind miss daisy. no link but a nice pic of miss daisy:)
I personally think it's a good idea to reduce the speeds. The majority of 60MPH roads can't be driven at 60, but you'll still have the incompetent ones who will try. So why not reduce the speed?
Cars have become a lot safer, yes, but they still can't deal with a combined collision of 120mph or above very well.
I have passed my driving test, but I cannot afford a car, but even if I got one, I wouldn't want to risk going 60mph down a country lane. I value my life more than that, but obviously the 'boy racer' types don't, nor do they respect anyone else's. Imagine what it would feel like to be hit by a car, or even a cars wing mirror at 60-70mph?
The majority of 60MPH roads can't be driven at 60,
What makes you think that?
papa smurf
08-03-2009, 16:23
[QUOTE=CHiLL;34747582]I personally think it's a good idea to reduce the speeds. The majority of 60MPH roads can't be driven at 60, but you'll still have the incompetent ones who will try. So why not reduce the speed?
then surly the answer is to train the incompetent drivers not punish the rest .
What makes you think that?
Most of the ones I've been down are country lanes, which don't offer a good road surface and are often extremely bumpy. Most national speed limit roads excluding motorways and dual carridge ways are country lanes.
If you think you can drive along those sorts of roads safely, you're putting yourself and others at risk, which is where the problem lies.
I personally think it's a good idea to reduce the speeds. The majority of 60MPH roads can't be driven at 60, but you'll still have the incompetent ones who will try. So why not reduce the speed?
then surly the answer is to train the incompetent drivers not punish the rest .
How do you plan on 'training' all of these people who drive recklessly? It's an age old problem, as is seen with alcohol at the moment. We can't just target the people breaking the rules, but punish everyone instead. Don't get me wrong, I don't think punishing everyone is a good idea, but I don't have any other answers.
And how exactly does that stop someone speeding in a stolen car? ...
It doesn't.
...Or someone in an unfamiliar area who didn't even know there was a camera there or the limit was poorly mapped out?...
Which is why the national speed limit should be revised.
...It might stop them the next time they're out in the car but what if that original time is when they caused an accident and killed someone? Not much solace to the dead person's family..."oh don't worry, I'll be more careful next time"...
Which is why speeding should be dealt with harshly.
...Just because we're pointing out the flaws in your argument doesn't mean we want to absolute opposite end of the scale....
So, are you in favour of speed cameras? Or not?
...Does it offer an explanation as to why accident numbers have not fallen despite the increased use of speed cameras in the UK?
Really? Do you have a link to that information? Here is a link to a study that shows "a 51% reduction in injurious crashes":
http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/9/4/302
An independent study from a group in Wales.
It doesn't.
So we're agreed that all a speed camera does is take photos? Good.
Which is why the national speed limit should be revised.
There's no defendable reason for that.
Which is why speeding should be dealt with harshly.
Ok so if I'm reading that properly, it's a case of "OK you killed someone, go down for 15 years" instead of "Ok how can we get it in to your mind that driving the way you did could have caused an accident?". I'd prefer to treat the disease rather than cure it.
So, are you in favour of speed cameras? Or not?
I'm in favour of proven methods of attacking the cause of bad driving. As we've agreed speed cameras do nothing but take photos. There are other traffic calming methods available that don't raise so much revenue for the treasury but they don't suit the anti-car brigade.
Really? Do you have a link to that information?
Certainly, from the link in the original post:
Britain’s roads were the safest in the world until 2001, relative to its population, but have since fallen into sixth place behind countries such as the Netherlands, Sweden and Norway
rogerdraig
08-03-2009, 16:45
It doesn't.
Which is why the national speed limit should be revised.
Which is why speeding should be dealt with harshly.
So, are you in favour of speed cameras? Or not?
Really? Do you have a link to that information? Here is a link to a study that shows "a 51% reduction in injurious crashes":
http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/9/4/302
An independent study from a group in Wales.
most dont know the national speed limit now changinging wont increase that number
60 roads are perfectly safe now if you drive with in the limits forthe conditions changing the limit wont change that
as to cameras they increase problems not reduce them ( i can play quot the study all day )
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/06/602.asp
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/lancashire/4003367.stm
as the one study there shows the best way to ( only way ) improve safty is to put more officers in cars on the road in risk areas
papa smurf
08-03-2009, 16:52
How do you plan on 'training' all of these people who drive recklessly? It's an age old problem, as is seen with alcohol at the moment. We can't just target the people breaking the rules, but punish everyone instead. Don't get me wrong, I don't think punishing everyone is a good idea, but I don't have any other answers.
i don't .just train those who are unable to drive at 60 mph etc, i use these roads daily have done for years 100% accident free[ why] good training imo
So we're agreed that all a speed camera does is take photos? Good...
Eh?
...There's no defendable reason for that....
So you don't want to move on from the 70s?
...Ok so if I'm reading that properly, it's a case of "OK you killed someone, go down for 15 years" instead of "Ok how can we get it in to your mind that driving the way you did could have caused an accident?". I'd prefer to treat the disease rather than cure it...
No, it's a case of "OK you were speeding, which increases the risk of death and serious injury, so we are going to deal with you harshly before you kill someone." An ounce of prevention, etc.
...I'm in favour of proven methods of attacking the cause of bad driving. ...
So you would be in favour of speed cameras if it could be shown that they reduce speeding (which is bad driving)?
...Certainly, from the link in the original post:
Maybe road safety has improved faster in the Nordic countries than in the UK. I don't see how that link shows that speed cameras are ineffective.
most dont know the national speed limit now changinging wont increase that number...
Those people need educating.
...60 roads are perfectly safe now if you drive with in the limits forthe conditions changing the limit wont change that...
So where do the 3000 deaths per annum occur?
...as to cameras they increase problems not reduce them ( i can play quot the study all day )
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/06/602.asp
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/lancashire/4003367.stm
as the one study there shows the best way to ( only way ) improve safty is to put more officers in cars on the road in risk areas
Hmm. The full document referred to in the first link is about cameras at road works, and found a 2% reduction in fatal injuries associated with their use.
As for the second link, there is no mention of the source data, but from the article: "It also acknowledged that road casualty figures have fallen significantly in the town over the past year"
I agree, putting more officers in cars should be effective. Also very expensive.
Eh?
I said, "So we're agreed that all a speed camera does is take photos? Good..."
]So you don't want to move on from the 70s?
I'm happy as the way things are until someone can prove otherwise.
No, it's a case of "OK you were speeding, which increases the risk of death and serious injury, so we are going to deal with you harshly before you kill someone." An ounce of prevention, etc.
Sums it up really. I'd prefer several kilos of prevention to be honest.
So you would be in favour of speed cameras if it could be shown that they reduce speeding (which is bad driving)?
If there was no other way of dealing with speeding other than a machine that takes photos then yes I'd be in favour.
Maybe road safety has improved faster in the Nordic countries than in the UK. I don't see how that link shows that speed cameras are ineffective.
Speed camera use has increased. Safety levels haven't. Can you see a mismatch there?
Hmm. The full document referred to in the first link is about cameras at road works, and found a 2% reduction in fatal injuries associated with their use.
As for the second link, there is no mention of the source data, but from the article: "It also acknowledged that road casualty figures have fallen significantly in the town over the past year"
So faced with information which keeps pointing to the suggestion that speed cameras do little to increase safety, do you still believe it to be so?
I agree, putting more officers in cars should be effective. Also very expensive.
Cost over safety eh? I'm glad you'll never stand for election.
i don't .just train those who are unable to drive at 60 mph etc, i use these roads daily have done for years 100% accident free[ why] good training imo
Even trained, you aren't going to stop people from driving these roads unsafely.
Speed cameras only take pictures, yes, but that picture is stored on a database, a fine and points are then posted to the registered driver. Sometimes it causes bans. It deters people from speeding.
Even trained, you aren't going to stop people from driving these roads unsafely.
Speed cameras only take pictures, yes, but that picture is stored on a database, a fine and points are then posted to the registered driver. Sometimes it causes bans. It deters people from speeding.
Or it makes them try harder not to get caught.
rogerdraig
08-03-2009, 17:45
Eh?
So you don't want to move on from the 70s?
No, it's a case of "OK you were speeding, which increases the risk of death and serious injury, so we are going to deal with you harshly before you kill someone." An ounce of prevention, etc.
So you would be in favour of speed cameras if it could be shown that they reduce speeding (which is bad driving)?
Maybe road safety has improved faster in the Nordic countries than in the UK. I don't see how that link shows that speed cameras are ineffective.
Those people need educating.
So where do the 3000 deaths per annum occur?
Hmm. The full document referred to in the first link is about cameras at road works, and found a 2% reduction in fatal injuries associated with their use.
As for the second link, there is no mention of the source data, but from the article: "It also acknowledged that road casualty figures have fallen significantly in the town over the past year"
I agree, putting more officers in cars should be effective. Also very expensive.
the 3000 deaths per year occur mostly on 30 limit roads
have a read through download 4 on this page http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics/datatablespublications/accidents/casualtiesgbar/roadcasualtiesgreatbritain20071
for a breakdown on what caused them
i will try to find the breakdown on deaths per speed of road but they bury that stuff well but i know that it hasn't change much for the last 30 or 40 years and 30 roads were always by far the riskiest because they have the most pedestrians on them
and of all the road users needing education they are by far the biggest one that should be educated
personally i think every school child now should have to pass a driving test they can choose not to drive if they wish after but at least they would understand putting a foot on a zebra crossing doesnt mean a car will or even can stop in time
and that they need to look left right and often behind themselves to cross at junctions ( which from the last stats i read were again one of the highest risk places next to crossing between parked cars )
So where do the 3000 deaths per annum occur?
Not on 60mph roads, judging by DoT's own statistics. They're claiming a possible reduction in 200-250 road deaths as a result of reducing the speed limit.
So where are the other 2,750?
Answer: local roads, mostly in 30 limits, outside homes, parks and schools.
There's no doubt it's barmy to have the limit at 60mph on some of our rural roads. The road past my house is narrow, winding and almost single-track in places, yet technically it's not illegal to do 60 on it. In practice, of course, it's almost impossible to reach, much less exceed the limit on this road, and anyone who tried would be at risk of prosecution for dangerous driving, assuming there was a copper around to flag them down.
And that's the other big problem with this. Speed cameras deal with but one issue, namely speed. They do not enforce or encourage safe or courteous driving, use of seat belts, non-use of mobile phones, clearways, U-turn restrictions or any other road traffic law you could mention. And yet you can be sure they will be used as justification to further reduce the number of traffic cops on our roads.
Blanket reduction of the limits, and blanket imposition of speed cameras, will cause a major erosion in the basic consent of the people that is required for the Law to be effective in this country.
In my experience the majority of fatals are usually down to a combination of drink/drugs/inexperience/showing off/grossly inappropriate cars and speed rather than speed alone.
Some roads, while technically 60MPH, shouldn't be anywhere near that speed but enforcing it without a massive expansion in cameras (which have their flaws) or some type of GPS blackbox fitted to cars (part of a pay as you drive scheme from HM Revenue and Moneygrabbing?) would be next to impossible.
If you want to seriously reduce the number of fatalities look at the whole testing/licensing of drivers. It's ludicrous that you can pass a test in a 1.2 litre punto with no experience of driving in rain, at night or on a motorway and then go out, buy a knackered old Subaru etc. and load it up with a bunch of your mates for a tear around the back roads.
Phased licensing as to the amount of passengers/power of car is the way forward as far as I'm concerned rather than a blanket dropping of speed which will be ignored by 99% of drivers anyway.
In my experience the majority of fatals are usually down to a combination of drink/drugs/inexperience/showing off/grossly inappropriate cars and speed rather than speed alone.
Some roads, while technically 60MPH, shouldn't be anywhere near that speed but enforcing it without a massive expansion in cameras (which have their flaws) or some type of GPS blackbox fitted to cars (part of a pay as you drive scheme from HM Revenue and Moneygrabbing?) would be next to impossible.
If you want to seriously reduce the number of fatalities look at the whole testing/licensing of drivers. It's ludicrous that you can pass a test in a 1.2 litre punto with no experience of driving in rain, at night or on a motorway and then go out, buy a knackered old Subaru etc. and load it up with a bunch of your mates for a tear around the back roads.
Phased licensing as to the amount of passengers/power of car is the way forward as far as I'm concerned rather than a blanket dropping of speed which will be ignored by 99% of drivers anyway.
In all probability the most sensible post to made in this thread about this subject.
Down the Pub
08-03-2009, 20:05
And cause major tailbacks, if you have one car doing 50MPH the car behind him is doing 45MPH if you've got quite a few cars following the car at the back will be stood, this is caused on the motorway when you see the matrix signs saying 50MPH, it will cause loads of tailbacks because it's causing a knock back effect with the traffic.
don't usually pay that much attention to them, as most of the time they display incorrect & out of time crap ie. a few miles worth of matrix 50mph warnings for no reason.
If they upped the speed limit there's be no tailbacks whatsoever. Do they have tailbacks in Germany?
not as far as i know, my boss has a house there and he drives there all the time and don't think he'd put up with that. saying that he'd pass most of it in his motor.
It doesn't.
Which is why the national speed limit should be revised.
Which is why speeding should be dealt with harshly.
So, are you in favour of speed cameras? Or not?
Really? Do you have a link to that information? Here is a link to a study that shows "a 51% reduction in injurious crashes":
http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/9/4/302
An independent study from a group in Wales.
nothing to do with brunstrum and his posse? he's as bad as the whitehall tit brigade.
so what about people like me that have to drive from site to site for work. are the government gonna pay the extra in o/t and traveling for the extra time it takes to get places for jobs that need doing? not everywhere is accessible easily from m/way's and i'll be damned if i'm gonna leave home before 4.30/5am like i do now to get to s-west/n-east.
And cause major tailbacks, if you have one car doing 50MPH the car behind him is doing 45MPH if you've got quite a few cars following the car at the back will be stood, this is caused on the motorway when you see the matrix signs saying 50MPH, it will cause loads of tailbacks because it's causing a knock back effect with the traffic.
If they upped the speed limit there's be no tailbacks whatsoever. Do they have tailbacks in Germany?
That's not true at all. The reverse, in fact. Tailbacks in heavy traffic, where reduced speed limits are in effect, are caused by people ignoring the reduced limits, screaming up behind someone who is obeying the reduced limit, and then slamming their brakes on. The act of sudden braking causes a feedback of heavy braking right down the line of traffic that gets progressively more severe as it goes, until eventually it brings the lane to a standstill.
Anyone who spends any amount of time on the motorways knows that the safest place to be in heavy, moving traffic is lane 1, where the truckers know a thing or two about maintaining a steady speed. Try it next time you're out, and enjoy the feeling of cruising along steadily while all the t0ssers in their BMWs and Audis pelt along in lane 3 and narrowly avoid rear-ending each other.
rogerdraig
08-03-2009, 21:15
In my experience the majority of fatals are usually down to a combination of drink/drugs/inexperience/showing off/grossly inappropriate cars and speed rather than speed alone.
Some roads, while technically 60MPH, shouldn't be anywhere near that speed but enforcing it without a massive expansion in cameras (which have their flaws) or some type of GPS blackbox fitted to cars (part of a pay as you drive scheme from HM Revenue and Moneygrabbing?) would be next to impossible.
If you want to seriously reduce the number of fatalities look at the whole testing/licensing of drivers. It's ludicrous that you can pass a test in a 1.2 litre punto with no experience of driving in rain, at night or on a motorway and then go out, buy a knackered old Subaru etc. and load it up with a bunch of your mates for a tear around the back roads.
Phased licensing as to the amount of passengers/power of car is the way forward as far as I'm concerned rather than a blanket dropping of speed which will be ignored by 99% of drivers anyway.
couldnt agree more staged licences for types of car and on the passenger thing it was muted a while back that new drivers shouldnt be allowed to carry unlicensed passengers for so long after passing test especially for the under 25s
i would go further and say every one should resit test every 5 or 10 years and at the very least pass a high way code test over those times.
tweetypie/8
08-03-2009, 21:32
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/driving/article5864847.ece
here we go again ,might as well get a tricycle and make every one happy .
THE government is to cut the national speed limit from 60mph to 50mph on most of Britain’s roads, enforced by a new generation of average speed cameras.[from the article]
i am all for it,give it a years trial and see if it has a significant effect,also the police should be seen to enforce it rigidly anything is worth a try to reduce the carnage on the roads.
homealone
08-03-2009, 21:40
The proposal is for speed restrictions on certain single carriageway roads.
In my experience the main problems with driving on such roads are :-
People wanting to overtake at all costs whether visibility or road conditions are suitable, or not.
The fact that many HGV vehicles are restricted to 40mph on such roads, which encourages the point above..
I would be in favour of restricting cars to 50mph on some roads, if the trucks were allowed to go at the same speed (conditions allowing) & a reasonable average speed could be maintained 'in convoy' ???
Agreed.
I went shopping yesterday, was nearly run off the road 3 times by idiots coming around corners half on my side of the road half on theirs. I got cut up twice on roundabouts by people in the wrong lane. Had to stand in front of someone's car in the carpark to stop it rolling forward and hitting other cars whilst Mrs-M-to-be went to put a tannoy call out for the driver because they'd left their handbrake off.
None of these incidents was caused by speed, they were all caused by the fact that the idiots behind the wheel should never have been given a damn driving licence in the first place.
Correct but all such incidents are less dangerous at lower speed. There's no doubt about it that speed isn't the only factor in serious accidents but equally there's no doubt that the higher the speed, the more serious any given incident will be whether due to an idiotic driver or a mechanical failure - especially if you happen to be a pedestrian who comes into conflict with a car.
Oh and yes I am a driver just in case Russ is wondering.
---------- Post added at 22:08 ---------- Previous post was at 22:04 ----------
Just another money making scheme thought up by ministers desperate to make more money penalising the motorist, the clue is in this quote
Ministers plan to use average speed cameras, which monitor speeds over distances of up to six miles
Measuring speeds over 6 miles will have fines pouring in and probably cause more shunts as cars box together on long journeys, well thought out by idiots without a clue.
It won't have any fines pouring in if drivers do what they ought to be doing and pay attention to their speed. Given that speed cameras are well signed and national limits well advertised, I'd say the real idiots are those who just can't help getting fined and racking up points!
Apparently those who're ignorant enough to comment on the driving of everyone who's ever got points on their licence, has never been stuck behind 'Doris' on an empty lane...
And apparently has never been in a hurry either.
Hmm..
homealone
08-03-2009, 23:16
Apparently those who're ignorant enough to comment on the driving of everyone who's ever got points on their licence, has never been stuck behind 'Doris' on an empty lane...
And apparently has never been in a hurry either.
Hmm..
sorry, but being in an hurry is no excuse to drive like an idiot - I sympathise with the scenario of being stuck behind a slow driver, but that shouldn't affect what constitutes safe driving on a single carriageway with limited visibility ??
The fact that many HGV vehicles are restricted to 40mph on such roads, which encourages the point above..
I would be in favour of restricting cars to 50mph on some roads, if the trucks were allowed to go at the same speed (conditions allowing) & a reasonable average speed could be maintained 'in convoy' ???
Mmmm, started reading this thread, lost the plot half way through with all the to me to you points of view.
Yours though mate ring soooooooooooo true, it's not the speed limit but the lack of for certain vehicle types that causes problems such as tail backs on minor roads, lets not forget that most of the limits in place today were set 40 plus years ago, it's time the government got it's act together, stopped targeting the motorist for easy fines and got the roads up to scratch.
rogerdraig
08-03-2009, 23:57
Correct but all such incidents are less dangerous at lower speed. There's no doubt about it that speed isn't the only factor in serious accidents but equally there's no doubt that the higher the speed, the more serious any given incident will be whether due to an idiotic driver or a mechanical failure - especially if you happen to be a pedestrian who comes into conflict with a car.
Oh and yes I am a driver just in case Russ is wondering.
---------- Post added at 22:08 ---------- Previous post was at 22:04 ----------
It won't have any fines pouring in if drivers do what they ought to be doing and pay attention to their speed. Given that speed cameras are well signed and national limits well advertised, I'd say the real idiots are those who just can't help getting fined and racking up points!
50 limit wont save lives on those roads
100mph head on crash will be little diferent to 120 mph head on crash
the only difference will be fine revenue
if they want to reduce accidents on these roads then altering the layout in rural areas would be the way to go
there is no real reason why most blind bends which are mostly part of a road snaking through very old boundaries being straightened out
in recent news several of the deaths have been caused by hidden dips these to could easily be removed by filling in or cutting down the hight of parts of road
any attempt to say there is no money for this is laughable with the amount they spend on installing road humps and traffic islands which serve no purpose other than to pacify the anti speed alliance and are totally ineffective at doing the job could be used instead for making roads safe ( i know it would take time )
as to cameras being well signed i beg to differ plus the police still love thier hidden vans on perfectly straight roads in many areas
homealone
09-03-2009, 00:21
Mmmm, started reading this thread, lost the plot half way through with all the to me to you points of view.
Yours though mate ring soooooooooooo true, it's not the speed limit but the lack of for certain vehicle types that causes problems such as tail backs on minor roads, lets not forget that most of the limits in place today were set 40 plus years ago, it's time the government got it's act together, stopped targeting the motorist for easy fines and got the roads up to scratch.
cheers bop - I'm driving at least 2,000 miles per month, recently, I totally agree that measures to help motorists, rather than hindering them would be preferable. :tu:
cheers bop - I'm driving at least 2,000 miles per month, recently, I totally agree that measures to help motorists, rather than hindering them would be preferable. :tu:
Ouch mate, feel for ya, not missing my average 2000 per week since i went self employed.
I count myself as a reasonable / good all round driver, I check all mirrors constantly, look ahead, left and right, I know who's where and when, in case of. This said, you can't foresee the dicks of the road.
One of my big moans isn't speeders but those who don't go fast enough on any given stretch ) those that do 40ish on the M1 for example............:mad: far more dangerous IMHO
homealone
09-03-2009, 01:07
Ouch mate, feel for ya, not missing my average 2000 per week since i went self employed.
I count myself as a reasonable / good all round driver, I check all mirrors constantly, look ahead, left and right, I know who's where and when, in case of. This said, you can't foresee the dicks of the road.
One of my big moans isn't speeders but those who don't go fast enough on any given stretch ) those that do 40ish on the M1 for example............:mad: far more dangerous IMHO
so true - on the single carriageways I hate people who go fast on the straight bits, then slow down drastically for bends or when anyone is coming the other way...
rogerdraig
09-03-2009, 01:51
my favourites are the ones who do 40ish through the lanes ( where i would be doing 60 most of the time holding me up ( i rarely overtake unless its really safe ) then do the same 40ish through the 30 areas where i do do 30
A bit off topic but when I was taking an advanced driving course the Police driving instructor used to describe these pedestrians and vehicle using idiots as "Accidents looking for somewhere to happen."
I do wonder whether the whole lot of them are all totally oblivious of the danger they put themselves and others in to.
Funny you should say that, when I was taking my PSV test last year the examiner was an Ex Police officer traffic department, he said exactly the same thing as your instructor, he said 80% of accidents are caused by pedestrians / cyclists not looking what they are doing.
Not teaching learners to drive safely at speed is probably a major factor in the accidents where speed is the cause. At least in Germany they are very fierce in preventing accidents in built up areas and let drivers drive out on the open road and allow them to actually experience driving at speed (100mph +) whilst they are learning.
Speeding does not equal bad driving otherwise the police would be in trouble for starters.
Silly situations where you have a 30mph limit followed by national speed limit then a 40mph limit in the space of a 1000 metres should be sorted out before blanket speed limits of 50mph and average speed cameras are installed.
What is to stop someone hurtling along at 50 mph through an average camera in town then slowing to a crawl for the exit camera (all this without normal traffic jams slowing them up anyway)? Brilliant traffic management it is not!
50 limit wont save lives on those roads
100mph head on crash will be little diferent to 120 mph head on crash
the only difference will be fine revenue
Not true. The officially quoted stopping distance at 50mph is 53 metres; at 60mph it's 73 metres. In the event of a threatened head-on collision, you have an extra 40 metres in which to come to a standstill, if you're both doing 50, than if you're both doing 60.
Having said all that, why do you choose head-on collisions as your example of why the reduced limit wouldn't work? I suspect on rural roads there are lots of other things more likely to cause an accident (like skidding off on corners, something that happens around here very regularly).
Is this all a primer for when HMG starts "road pricing" ?
50mph on free roads, 70mph on paid roads.
dgardner
10-03-2009, 01:36
Another excuse for car drivers to moan about how hard done by they are!!!
why cut it to 50mph???
If they want to save lives set it a 20mph and be done with it.
I personally think it's a good idea to reduce the speeds. The majority of 60MPH roads can't be driven at 60
Really ? Says who ?
The majority of national speed limit roads I drive on can easily be driven at 60mph, in fact quite a few would be fine at 70mph.
rogerdraig
10-03-2009, 21:13
Not true. The officially quoted stopping distance at 50mph is 53 metres; at 60mph it's 73 metres. In the event of a threatened head-on collision, you have an extra 40 metres in which to come to a standstill, if you're both doing 50, than if you're both doing 60.
Having said all that, why do you choose head-on collisions as your example of why the reduced limit wouldn't work? I suspect on rural roads there are lots of other things more likely to cause an accident (like skidding off on corners, something that happens around here very regularly).
because most fatals ( i stand to be corrected if you can find data to the contrary ) are head on collisions because one vehicle is on the wrong side of the road
as to the stopping distance thing that is normaly again useless as most of these tend to happen on blind bends and or dips so neither one get a chance to break
which takes me back to if they want to reduce deaths then making visability better is the way to go that is getting rid of hiden dips and changing layout to reduce blind bends or just alter limit at that point
because most fatals ( i stand to be corrected if you can find data to the contrary ) are head on collisions because one vehicle is on the wrong side of the road
The majority of fatals (number of incidents wise) involve one car going off the road and hitting something substantially more solid than a flimsy metal box. In car vs largish tree there is only ever going to be one winner.
rogerdraig
11-03-2009, 13:42
The majority of fatals (number of incidents wise) involve one car going off the road and hitting something substantially more solid than a flimsy metal box. In car vs largish tree there is only ever going to be one winner.
think the figure i read ( cant find them at the moment ) related to number of deaths
but those type i bet are where the car is doing well over the 60 mark anyway ( i could be wrong ) so i doubt a 50 limit will change those either
they dont like put these stats in one place do they lol had about 40pages open to diferent ones and still cant find the set i am after :(
Just another money making scheme thought up by ministers desperate to make more money penalising the motorist, the clue is in this quote
Ministers plan to use average speed cameras, which monitor speeds over distances of up to six miles
Measuring speeds over 6 miles will have fines pouring in and probably cause more shunts as cars box together on long journeys, well thought out by idiots without a clue.
First of all, if the driver keeps to the speed limit, they won't get fined, it's as simple as that.
Secondly, how do you work out that this will "probably cause more shunts as cars box together on long journeys?"
---------- Post added at 17:29 ---------- Previous post was at 17:28 ----------
Nothing more than yet another tax on the motorist.
How?
---------- Post added at 17:31 ---------- Previous post was at 17:29 ----------
As I braked to avoid hitting a middle-aged woman running across the road in Guildford yesterday, I wondered if she would be happy sacrificing her life to save 30 seconds saved walking to and waiting for the crossing which was just 10 metres away. She was only 1 of about 3 or 4 people in a half mile drive to pick up my Mrs that risked their lives for the sake of a few seconds.
Begs the question really.....
---------- Post added at 17:32 ---------- Previous post was at 17:31 ----------
Good isn't it? Every year cars get safer, brakes and tyres more efficient, and the Government more bloody stupid!
Quite, but isn't it better that every we year we make safer drivers?
zing_deleted
11-03-2009, 17:33
same thing can be said of drivers who speed though they risk their lives a fine and the safety of others for a few seconds off their journey
Agreed.
I went shopping yesterday, was nearly run off the road 3 times by idiots coming around corners half on my side of the road half on theirs. I got cut up twice on roundabouts by people in the wrong lane. Had to stand in front of someone's car in the carpark to stop it rolling forward and hitting other cars whilst Mrs-M-to-be went to put a tannoy call out for the driver because they'd left their handbrake off.
None of these incidents was caused by speed, they were all caused by the fact that the idiots behind the wheel should never have been given a damn driving licence in the first place.
These incidents are more than likely caused by excessive speeds.
---------- Post added at 17:39 ---------- Previous post was at 17:34 ----------
And cause major tailbacks, if you have one car doing 50MPH the car behind him is doing 45MPH if you've got quite a few cars following the car at the back will be stood, this is caused on the motorway when you see the matrix signs saying 50MPH, it will cause loads of tailbacks because it's causing a knock back effect with the traffic.
If they upped the speed limit there's be no tailbacks whatsoever. Do they have tailbacks in Germany?
Now that is silly, isn't it? If the cars that follow get progressively slower, they will be farther and farther apart. Most traffic jams are caused by excessive speeds. When these cars ALL stop being one another that is what is called the "concertina" effect. If the cars are slower, as is the reason for the variable speed limits on motorways, the effect is greatly reduced.
zing_deleted
11-03-2009, 17:43
@nidge yes they do have traffic jams in Germany
http://tamaraingermany.blogspot.com/2007/07/our-vacation-day-1.html
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mccieb/2830418177/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/1499739/Germans-hope-U-turn-will-bring-relief-to-gridlocked-autobahns.html
rogerdraig
11-03-2009, 18:10
These incidents are more than likely caused by excessive speeds.
---------- Post added at 17:39 ---------- Previous post was at 17:34 ----------
Now that is silly, isn't it? If the cars that follow get progressively slower, they will be farther and farther apart. Most traffic jams are caused by excessive speeds. When these cars ALL stop being one another that is what is called the "concertina" effect. If the cars are slower, as is the reason for the variable speed limits on motorways, the effect is greatly reduced.
no and no
the offical stats show its not speed causing accidents
see http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics/datatablespublications/accidents/casualtiesgbar/roadcasualtiesgreatbritain20071
downloads the stats from article 4 downloads on the right side side
accidents because of speed are not the major factor
and traffic jams are not because of excessive speed i have never seen a study show that
the variable speeds on motorways are there to keep excessive amounts of traffic moving by speeding them up more often than not
no and no
the offical stats show its not speed causing accidents
I was referring to the incidents described by Rob M:
was nearly run off the road 3 times by idiots coming around corners half on my side of the road half on theirs.
Which I am sure, if you had read the post correctly, you would have noticed.
...and traffic jams are not because of excessive speed i have never seen a study show that
the variable speeds on motorways are there to keep excessive amounts of traffic moving by speeding them up more often than not
How about this one?
M25 Controlled Motorway-Case Study (http://www.dft.gov.uk/itstoolkit/CaseStudies/m25controlledmotorway.htm)
The basic principle of Controlled Motorways is congestion management using Mandatory variable speed limits that are appropriate for the traffic conditions. This harmonises traffic speeds and reduces the severity of shockwaves (thereby reducing stop-start driving). Smoothing traffic flow in this way helps to delay the onset of flow breakdown and advances the recovery of traffic flow from congested conditions.
rogerdraig
12-03-2009, 02:16
I was referring to the incidents described by Rob M:
Which I am sure, if you had read the post correctly, you would have noticed.
How about this one?
M25 Controlled Motorway-Case Study (http://www.dft.gov.uk/itstoolkit/CaseStudies/m25controlledmotorway.htm)
that was introduced as the study says to help stop people hitting the back of stationary trafic beause of congestion it hope that it would impact shokwaves too but that wasnt why it was put there
its intention was overall to increase speed to relive the congestion
and ends with
Quote
No attempt has been made to validate the results reported. Users of the guidance are encouraged to assess the robustness of the results presented and the likely transferability of the case study to their own local environment.
Unquote
and in real terms has no relation ship to National speed limited lanes where a fifty uncontrolled limit would not be deployed intelligently when needed it would just be!
most lanes can be driven at 60 where they cant they should have thier speed reduced but the lanes i know where such a reduction woud be valid need much more than a 10mph drop
if i my beso bold if anything was going to be done it shouldbe that 60 should be stay as it is 50/40 be put in place by councils where needed and where no center line can be painted due to width a 30 limit be imposed
i think the police here will most likely agree with that
The truth is that if there was absolutely no way that a pedestrian could get hurt or killed on any road in Britain. there would still be speed cameras plotted all over the place to raise revenue.
I read somewhere about all this mass hysteria about paedophiles. someone said it's not happening, there is not a war going on outside your front door. it's only there because you are told it's there and you want to believe it's there.
The government wants you to believe that we need to be nannied, and we have got to the point where we want this. and get up in the morning to find out what they are going to do for us today to make our lives more governed than it was yesterday.
LondonRoad
12-03-2009, 13:40
The truth is that if there was absolutely no way that a pedestrian could get hurt or killed on any road in Britain. there would still be speed cameras plotted all over the place to raise revenue.
I read somewhere about all this mass hysteria about paedophiles. someone said it's not happening, there is not a war going on outside your front door. it's only there because you are told it's there and you want to believe it's there.
The government wants you to believe that we need to be nannied, and we have got to the point where we want this. and get up in the morning to find out what they are going to do for us today to make our lives more governed than it was yesterday.
I can't really say I've noticed any mass hysteria about paedophiles. There is more of them getting caught because of investigative advances but I don't think there's any mass hysteria. I teach my daughters not to talk to strangers the same way I was taught some time ago.
Anyway.... to get back on topic, would it not be better to use paedophiles as sleeping policeman on all dangerous roads since they appear to serve no other useful purpose in our society.
Second thoughts, bad idea, Lots of people might speed up instead of slowing down. ;)
that was introduced as the study says to help stop people hitting the back of stationary trafic beause of congestion it hope that it would impact shokwaves too but that wasnt why it was put there
its intention was overall to increase speed to relive the congestion
and ends with
Quote
No attempt has been made to validate the results reported. Users of the guidance are encouraged to assess the robustness of the results presented and the likely transferability of the case study to their own local environment.
Unquote
and in real terms has no relation ship to National speed limited lanes where a fifty uncontrolled limit would not be deployed intelligently when needed it would just be!
most lanes can be driven at 60 where they cant they should have thier speed reduced but the lanes i know where such a reduction woud be valid need much more than a 10mph drop
if i my beso bold if anything was going to be done it shouldbe that 60 should be stay as it is 50/40 be put in place by councils where needed and where no center line can be painted due to width a 30 limit be imposed
i think the police here will most likely agree with that
I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to say here. Your message makes no sense, can you re-post with more clarity?
---------- Post added at 16:41 ---------- Previous post was at 16:32 ----------
The truth is that if there was absolutely no way that a pedestrian could get hurt or killed on any road in Britain. there would still be speed cameras plotted all over the place to raise revenue.
But it's not just pedestrians, it is other road users that are at risk as well.
rogerdraig
14-03-2009, 17:21
I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to say here. Your message makes no sense, can you re-post with more clarity?
---------- Post added at 16:41 ---------- Previous post was at 16:32 ----------
But it's not just pedestrians, it is other road users that are at risk as well.
1 if you cant read it you cant read it
2 yes other road users most though because of head ons for amount of deaths these would be unlikely to be affected by a 10mph drop
derek say more accidents are from those just leaving the road but i expect that most of those are ones doing over the limit anyway
so far the government has brought forth no studies that show that this would in any way be effective and the data that they have available shows that pedestrian education should save more lives
No, still doesn't make any sense. Who TF is "derek?"
rogerdraig
15-03-2009, 00:57
try post 82 to find Derek
Who TF is "derek?"
I am :wavey:
And my most lengthy post on this subject is here. (http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/34747796-post58.html)
In my experience the majority of fatals are usually down to a combination of drink/drugs/inexperience/showing off/grossly inappropriate cars and speed rather than speed alone.
Some roads, while technically 60MPH, shouldn't be anywhere near that speed but enforcing it without a massive expansion in cameras (which have their flaws) or some type of GPS blackbox fitted to cars (part of a pay as you drive scheme from HM Revenue and Moneygrabbing?) would be next to impossible.
If you want to seriously reduce the number of fatalities look at the whole testing/licensing of drivers. It's ludicrous that you can pass a test in a 1.2 litre punto with no experience of driving in rain, at night or on a motorway and then go out, buy a knackered old Subaru etc. and load it up with a bunch of your mates for a tear around the back roads.
Phased licensing as to the amount of passengers/power of car is the way forward as far as I'm concerned rather than a blanket dropping of speed which will be ignored by 99% of drivers anyway.
Whilst I largely agree, in most cases, if the speeds were slower, the risks would be less and the results no so devastating.
rogerdraig
15-03-2009, 15:14
Whilst I largely agree, in most cases, if the speeds were slower, the risks would be less and the results no so devastating.
thats not what the stats say
they say that the problems are inattention lack of observation by both car drivers and pedestrians
any speed over 30 is likely to be fatal to a pedestrian and in real terms any speed over 40 in head ons is likely to be fatal
the run of roads that Derek says are higher in numbers than the head ons are from the crashes i can find data on unlikely to be affected by any speed limit as the majority seem to be going well over any posted limit in any case
the evidence that a speed limit reduction will do any thing is not there
if they want to get more to stick to the limits we have ( though motorways should be increased in any case ) is to actually plan the limits we already have properly and increase responsibility for pedestrians
most side roads should be reduced to 10 /20 mph ( yep some places i want slower limits ) other non main route roads should be 30 with lower variable limits for school and even busy crossing places at certain times of day ( we have them working very well fow some of our schools controlled by the lolly pop man
on other a and b roads 30 40 50 limits should be put in appropriate to the road and not as a lot are now reduced on straight sections so its easy to put a sped trap in on a road that was perfectly safe at a high speed till camera turned up
motorways should have higher but variable limits where its safe to do
and if they realy want a big reduction every child should have to pass a driving test of some sort before leaving school
and start retesting every one at least once evry 10 years preferably every 5 ( both could help get extra people in work to at the moment ;) )
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.