Road speed limit cut to 50mph ?

[TheNorm]

Originally Posted by Russ B

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.

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?

[Russ]

Originally Posted by TheNorm

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?

Originally Posted by TheNorm

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 ----------

Originally Posted by TheNorm

What about the inconvenience felt by the families of the 3000 road casualties per annum?

Were they all caused by speed?

[Peter_]

Originally Posted by TheNorm

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]

Originally Posted by Paul M

We truely are being run by idiots .......

You've just noticed this?

[TheNorm]

Originally Posted by Russ B

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 ----------

Originally Posted by Moldova

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?

[Peter_]

Originally Posted by TheNorm

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

[TheNorm]

Originally Posted by Moldova

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?

[Russ]

Originally Posted by TheNorm

Where on earth did "15mph" come from?

Surely that's where the anti-car brigade wants the limit to be?

Originally Posted by TheNorm

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.

Originally Posted by TheNorm

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 ----------

Originally Posted by TheNorm

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.

[Peter_]

Originally Posted by TheNorm

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.

[TheNorm]

Originally Posted by Russ B

Speed cameras do nothing except take photos.

Of people who are breaking the law.

Originally Posted by Moldova

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/projec...nual/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?

[slug]

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.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by TheNorm

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".

Originally Posted by TheNorm

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.

Originally Posted by TheNorm

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]

Originally Posted by TheNorm

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/projec...nual/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

[CHiLL]

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?

[Russ]

Originally Posted by CHiLL

The majority of 60MPH roads can't be driven at 60,

What makes you think that?