Road speed limit cut to 50mph ?

[papa smurf]

[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 .

[CHiLL]

Originally Posted by Russ B

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.

Originally Posted by papa smurf

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.

[TheNorm]

Originally Posted by Russ B

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/...stract/9/4/302

An independent study from a group in Wales.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by TheNorm

It doesn't.

So we're agreed that all a speed camera does is take photos? Good.

Originally Posted by TheNorm

Which is why the national speed limit should be revised.

There's no defendable reason for that.

Originally Posted by TheNorm

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.

Originally Posted by TheNorm

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.

Originally Posted by TheNorm

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]

Originally Posted by TheNorm

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/...stract/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/l...re/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]

Originally Posted by CHiLL

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

[TheNorm]

Originally Posted by Russ B

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.

Originally Posted by rogermevans

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/l...re/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.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by TheNorm

Eh?

I said, "So we're agreed that all a speed camera does is take photos? Good..."

Originally Posted by TheNorm

]So you don't want to move on from the 70s?

I'm happy as the way things are until someone can prove otherwise.

Originally Posted by TheNorm

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.

Originally Posted by TheNorm

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.

Originally Posted by TheNorm

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?

Originally Posted by TheNorm

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?

Originally Posted by TheNorm

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.

[CHiLL]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

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.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by CHiLL

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]

Originally Posted by TheNorm

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...atbritain20071

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 )

Originally Posted by TheNorm

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.

[Derek]

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.

[Peter_]

Originally Posted by Derek S

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]

Originally Posted by Nidge

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.

Originally Posted by Nidge

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.

Originally Posted by TheNorm

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/...stract/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.