Proposal to lower speed limit on A roads

[glojo]

I love the way statistics are manipulated. Two years ago a stgretch of motorway close to Exeter was used to test and evaluate the SPECS speed camera system. This area was nominated because of the number of serious injury accidents although in reality it is an excellent carriageway, well lit and extremely safe.

This experiment lasted 12 months and was deemed a great success in so far as it reduced speeds but it also reduced SIGNIFICANTLY the numbers of people prosecuted for speeding.

They based this on the fact that they used it during a period when there were road works. Prior to the SPEC system they had the standard speed camera and a significant number of drivers were prosecuted. When the SPECS system was installed, the speed dropped and the prosecutions dropped even more

This exact same stretch of motorway is now the subject of a further test. This time they are going to switch off the lighting. The reasons they have decided this road is a suitable location is because...... It is deemed an exceptionally safe location that very rarely over the last several years has any serious road traffic accidents

Statistics
They make experts look like liars and liars look like experts.

 

[st13phil]

Once again a proposed safety measure is ridiculed without knowing all the facts.

I suggest you read the Consultation Paper in full before defending the proposals, which are much further reaching than you believe.

BTW, you are not the only driver who has no desire to either be the victim or the cause of injury or death on the roads. I would suggest that the vast majority of drivers in the UK have a similar desire. Unfortunately, our government believe that to keep us all safe and sound we all have to be treated as incompetent fools who universally lack both the judgement and skill necessary to use our road network safely. I disagree very strongly with that notion.

 

[st4]

Once again a proposed safety measure is ridiculed without knowing all the facts. I am prepared to obey as best I can the law while driving for two reasons.

First, I do not want to be one of the 27,000 who will be killed or seriously injured on the roads this year.

Secondly, I do not want to be responsible for any of the 27,000 who will be killed or seriously injured on the roads this year.

This speed restriction proposal only applies to accident black-spots and residential streets where a speed reduction has been requested by the way.

Why should a speed limit reduction change this. Are you not capable of judging the speed you should drive rather than that being dictated to you.

Peoples hands can't be held for them in all aspects of life and the mentality of reducing the speed limits so our roads will be automatically safer is a farce. Speed limits are limits, not targets so if some folk feel its safer to travel at 40mph where the limit is 60 then so be it, but sometimes it is safe to do 60 on these roads (and fun too) and thats going to be taken from us.

if you are unable to judge how fast or slow you ought to be driving at, you quite frankly shouldn't be driving. A speed limit sign shouldn't play a part in this judgement, two eyes and a switched on mind should.

 

[stevesey]

If you're interested, you can download the Consultation Paper from here.

Simple tick box response form here - a chance to have your say (for what it's worth).

 

[oldcro]

Why should a speed limit reduction change this. Are you not capable of judging the speed you should drive rather than that being dictated to you.

Peoples hands can't be held for them in all aspects of life and the mentality of reducing the speed limits so our roads will be automatically safer is a farce. Speed limits are limits, not targets so if some folk feel its safer to travel at 40mph where the limit is 60 then so be it, but sometimes it is safe to do 60 on these roads (and fun too) and thats going to be taken from us.

if you are unable to judge how fast or slow you ought to be driving at, you quite frankly shouldn't be driving. A speed limit sign shouldn't play a part in this judgement, two eyes and a switched on mind should.

Because of your personal insults regarding my driving skills, of which you know nothing *** I will make no further comments on this subject.

 

[st4]

Simple tick box response form here - a chance to have your say (for what it's worth).

I wrote this to them, and CC'd autocar magazine saying that reducing the NSL is

Is quite frankly a waste of time....

We have a very low accident rate on our roads, and only 3k deaths/yr is an excellent figure and something we should be proud of, not something that needs improvement. This on 1st impressions may seem callous but given that the human body isn't designed to travel @ speeds greater than the speed in which it can propel itself (10mph) its a miracle given the number of journeys undertaken, and the number of people who travel on the roads each year. Its a credit to modern car design as much as it is a credit to road design and crash barrier improvements.

My next point comes down to driver ability. All drivers, are tought in the L test, to evaluate the speed of their vehicle relative to the conditions they are driving in. A speed limit is pointless. If a person is unable to work out the speed they should drive on they quite frankly deserve to crash and die, its one less to worry about as this country is over populated enough. A speed sign nannying them shouldn't be require, two eyes and a switched on mind are.

Furthermore it brings all drivers down to the lowest level, why should the "unfit" (to use darwinian theory) prevent the rest of us (the "fit") from travelling at a higher speed because they lack the basic skill of turning the wheel, applying the brakes, and looking for hazards at 60mph. Life is full of hazards and risks, why should the roads be any different.

People die, its a fact of life and reducing the NSL to 50mph won't change that as people will find the new speeds too slow to drive at and get frustrated, fall asleep, and when they do crash will still be travelling at speeds 5x greater (and be subject to double this if they do the unthinkable and hit another car) when they do.

Really, to nanny state us to complete safety, the speed limit needs to be 5mph everywhere (so if we hit another car we are only sunject to forces of a 10mph hit). Or do a really ungreen thing and cut down all tree's near roads, that means if Barry Chav decides to flee the tarmac in a cloud of buckfast fueled madness, its just an ego thats bruised in a field, not a car fully laden of burberry hooded chavs. Actually don't, I find enough of my tax goes to the job seekers.

And what of putting big brother average speed camera's everywhere. Is that not really the same as electronically tagging us, like they do released child molestors. I am not one of those specimans of animal life, (and nor am I one who can't judge when to use speeds of 60mph) so really leave the roads to us, and save our money for keeping them in a state that doesn't buckle our alloy wheels, damage our suspensions are rip our front spoilers off.

Regards

Stephen Taylor

 

[glojo]

Why should a speed limit reduction change this. Are you not capable of judging the speed you should drive rather than that being dictated to you.

Peoples hands can't be held for them in all aspects of life and the mentality of reducing the speed limits so our roads will be automatically safer is a farce. Speed limits are limits, not targets so if some folk feel its safer to travel at 40mph where the limit is 60 then so be it, but sometimes it is safe to do 60 on these roads (and fun too) and thats going to be taken from us.

if you are unable to judge how fast or slow you ought to be driving at, you quite frankly shouldn't be driving. A speed limit sign shouldn't play a part in this judgement, two eyes and a switched on mind should.

I gaurantee you here and now that the GREAT majority of ALL drivers travel along country lanes at speeds far in excess of what is appropriate.

Whether you agree or not, we should all only ever travel at a speed that we can stop in the distance we can see to be safe.

Where I live we have a 20mph speed limit. We have drivers that know better and think 20mph is way to slow.

Last week we had two pedestrians mown down by a driver that went around a blind bend and ploughed into these two people.

The very next day a car was pulling out of its drive and once more a car came asround this same bend and ploughed straight into it.

Speed limits are not the answer, sensible driving is, but like I said, how many people here can put there hand on their heart and say they only ever travel at the appropriate speed and can actually always stop within the distance they can see to be safe?

Stones and greenhouses come to mind

 

[st13phil]

... that means if Barry Chav decides to flee the tarmac in a cloud of buckfast fueled madness, its just an ego thats bruised in a field, not a car fully laden of burberry hooded chavs.

Do you ghost write for Rab C Nesbitt

 

[st4]

I gaurantee you here and now that the GREAT majority of ALL drivers travel along country lanes at speeds far in excess of what is appropriate.

Whether you agree or not, we should all only ever travel at a speed that we can stop in the distance we can see to be safe.

Where I live we have a 20mph speed limit. We have drivers that know better and think 20mph is way to slow.

Last week we had two pedestrians mown down by a driver that went around a blind bend and ploughed into these two people.

The very next day a car was pulling out of its drive and once more a car came asround this same bend and ploughed straight into it.

Speed limits are not the answer, sensible driving is, but like I said, how many people here can put there hand on their heart and say they only ever travel at the appropriate speed and can actually always stop within the distance they can see to be safe?

Stones and greenhouses come to mind

A fair and valid post john, and I think the key phrases I've put in bold.

Might I ask how a reduction of the NSL to 50mph will do this?

I think it will lure the stupid (i.e. Joe public) into a false sense of security that 50mph is a safe speed to do regardless and this poses a new set of dangers.

I think a better system is a sign that illustrates a potential area on a rural road where a slowed speed is advisable. Usually this is down with big white writing that says "slow" on the road or with a sign that has phrases like max speed 40mph for a particular corner.

As I keep saying, people should be able to judge what speeds they do, and if they mess it up and get caught they get punished and sometimes sent on a driver improvement course.

As a young person I won't lie and say I've never driven excessively fast, I have done, many times. But I do drive safely, and this low and behold can even be above 60mph when conditions are fair. A basic awareness of whats going on around you, and what how far you can see is all thats needed to keep 4 wheels on the road. However being human and not perfect mistakes do happen, and I believe that at 50mph plenty still will, and new sources of error will creep in (boredom and frustration).

I don't want to enter into the town driving debate at 20mph limits, they are a separate issue than the NSL 50mph one, but I do see the validity of your argument. In particular to urban driving conditions I see padestrians need to take more responsibility for their safety. Walking around with an iPod in unaware of your surroundings is completely wreckless and irresponsible, and puts people at great danger. I doubt this comment applies to the majority of people on this forum, as they are above the age of the purile behaviour that is unable to go anywhere without their music, but if I had a son or daughter, I'd be preaching the dangers of walking about with two earplugs in.

 

[st13phil]

Last week we had two pedestrians mown down by a driver that went around a blind bend and ploughed into these two people.

The very next day a car was pulling out of its drive and once more a car came asround this same bend and ploughed straight into it.

Speed limits are not the answer, sensible driving is

Unfortunately John, I think that after all the years that the road safety machine has concentrated on speed limits to the exclusion of driving standards the sort of incidents you mention will become ever more common. There are a whole generation of drivers now who think that as long as they don't exceed the posted limit then they are driving safely. How wrong they are

 

[Dieselman]

Unfortunately, our government believe that to keep us all safe and sound we all have to be treated as incompetent fools who universally lack both the judgement and skill necessary to use our road network safely.

Umm.. Haven't they already tried the other approach to no avail...hence the new measures..

 

[st4]

Umm.. Haven't they already tried the other approach to no avail...hence the new measures..

Nothing needs done, given the number of us our there that use the roads its pretty good that there are so few KSI's.

For once I am actually defending the state of the way things are in the UK.

Driving is hazardous, as are many things in life. The reason 3k people KSI'd/yr is that so many people travel by road each year. I can't think of anyone who hasn't been in a motor vehicle (inc buses) in the past 12 months. So out of 60million folk, 3k KSI'd/yr. The odds are very low and I'd say this 3k figure is something to be immensely proud of, especially given the intellecutal capacity of some of the people out there who drive

Perhaps therefore other hazardous activities like knife crime, drinking alcohol, and smoking should have the same level of scrutiny.

 

[wemorgan]

By KSI do you mean 'killed or seriously injured'? If you do, then the figure you quote of 3000 is incorrect. In 2007 there were 3172 road deaths, 30,720 killed or seriously injured and 247,780 road casualties. (source)

 

[Dieselman]

Perhaps therefore other hazardous activities like knife crime, drinking alcohol, and smoking should have the same level of scrutiny.

If 3000 road deaths isn't an issue why bother about a few knifings.?

 

[st4]

By KSI do you mean 'killed or seriously injured'? If you do, then the figure you quote of 3000 is incorrect. In 2007 there were 3172 road deaths, 30,720 killed or seriously injured and 247,780 road casualties. (source)

And out of a population of 50-60million people I think thats fairly good going given the fragility of the human body.

For 100% safety and nil deaths + SI's, speed limits need to be 5mph everywhere. Actually that would be okay, as I could have beer and drive safe in the knowledge that the nanny state will hold my hand and protect me and other about me as they've lower the speed limit to the point that cars are rendered redundant.

 

[st4]

If 3000 road deaths isn't an issue why bother about a few knifings.?

Because knifings are intentional and can be reduced by locking violent people away (for good, not for 2years because they had no money as a kid), road traffic accidents are unintentional and unavoidable (unless you imprison for life all of the UK population that an drive).

But I suppose you have a point, if the neds kept their wicked ways within themselves, then let them, keeps the JSA payments down. But alas they don't, they stab decent working people for a few bob to get some buckfast/drugs etc. Thats why we need to bother

 

[stevesey]

By KSI do you mean 'killed or seriously injured'? If you do, then the figure you quote of 3000 is incorrect. In 2007 there were 3172 road deaths, 30,720 killed or seriously injured and 247,780 road casualties. (source)

Looking at it in perspective these are the lowest figures since records began in 1927 (from the Times today). And although not the best in europe, these are close to the best - yes there's room for improvement, but not by treating us all like we can't make appropriate judgements.

Umm.. Haven't they already tried the other approach to no avail...hence the new measures..

The other approach? You mean a proper driver education initiative? Did I blink and miss that one.

 

[wemorgan]

road traffic accidents are unintentional and unavoidable

I suppose that is a very debatable point. It's been quite a few years now that the police changed 'road traffic accident' for 'road traffic incident'

Broadly, I'm in favour of low speed limits, for the simple reason that I have little faith in the mass population being capable in self control. Is it fair to look how the population controls their alcohol intake as an example of how driving might be were it to be unregulated?

Also, many treat speed limits as an infringement upon their civil liberty. But is this actually the case? Are speed limits not imposed in the rail and aerospace industries? Despite that are those drivers/pilots not more trained and regulated than car drivers?

I have real empathy for those resisting lower speed limits as I too feel frustration at times having to drive slower than my perceived ability. But having self control is no bad thing after all.

 

[Dieselman]

Won't reducing speed limits help people to have less, or less severe unintentional road accidents, simply because in a given time they will travel less distance.

 

[stevesey]

I suppose that is a very debatable point. It's been quite a few years now that the police changed 'road traffic accident' for 'road traffic incident'

Quite true - it's probably more accurate to say that the RTI was unintentional, but (as driver error makes up a large proportion of the statistics) the actions leading up to were most probably intentional and avoidable.