Road speed limit cut to 50mph ?

Originally Posted by rogermevans

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).

[Taf]

Is this all a primer for when HMG starts "road pricing" ?

50mph on free roads, 70mph on paid roads.

Another excuse for car drivers to moan about how hard done by they are!!!

[Pierre]

why cut it to 50mph???

If they want to save lives set it a 20mph and be done with it.

Originally Posted by CHiLL

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]

Originally Posted by Chris

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

[Derek]

Originally Posted by rogermevans

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]

Originally Posted by Derek S

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

[Flyboy]

Originally Posted by Moldova

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 ----------

Originally Posted by Sirius

Nothing more than yet another tax on the motorist.

How?

---------- Post added at 17:31 ---------- Previous post was at 17:29 ----------

Originally Posted by Charlie_Bubble

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 ----------

Originally Posted by Rob M

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?

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

[Flyboy]

Originally Posted by Rob M

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 ----------

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.

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.

@nidge yes they do have traffic jams in Germany

http://tamaraingermany.blogspot.com/...ion-day-1.html

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mccieb/2830418177/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...autobahns.html

[rogerdraig]

Originally Posted by Flyboy

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...atbritain20071

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

[Flyboy]

Originally Posted by rogermevans

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.

Originally Posted by rogermevans

...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

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]

Originally Posted by Flyboy

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

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