Proposal to lower speed limit on A roads

[stevesey]

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.

DM you know the answer to that - only if they force people to drive at a sensible speed - and there are plenty of A road bends where its not safe to go around at 50mph (especially in the wet), but the straights either side are perfectly adequate for 60mph. Poorly educated drivers will still have accidents even driving at 50mph.

 

[Dieselman]

DM you know the answer to that - only if they force people to drive at a sensible speed - .

But I thought the previous posts said they were always driving at a sensible speed so didn't need their hands holding by regulation.

If they are all traveling at sensible speed, how do the 'accidents' happen.?

 

[st13phil]

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

I don't think they have tried the other approach - for the last 15 years or so, at any rate.

The thing about road safety policy in the UK is that it's aimed at achieving a quick result which is an unrealistic expectation. There are some good themes in the latest dft consultation document and the stated intention of adopting an holistic approach to safety improvement is particularly refreshing. However, when you read further you realise that the "holistic approach" is actually biased heavily towards speed reduction and external control mechanisms to guarantee compliance. This is more of the "one club golfer" wrong headed approach that's got us to where we are today.

UK road safety policy has raised the importance of speed limits in the public's mind far above their realistic usefulness, but HMG won't accept that more of the same over used medicine won't actually make the patient better. Only a fool does something that doesn't work, then repeatedly does it again and again expecting a different outcome.

 

[Dieselman]

This is more of the "one club golfer" wrong headed approach that's got us to where we are today.

UK road safety policy has raised the importance of speed limits in the public's mind far above their realistic usefulness, but HMG won't accept that more of the same over used medicine won't actually make the patient better. Only a fool does something that doesn't work, then repeatedly does it again and again expecting a different outcome.

Errmm...but it is working..apparently..

Looking at it in perspective these are the lowest figures since records began in 1927

 

[st13phil]

Errmm...but it is working..apparently..

So all the work that vehicle manufacturers have been doing over the last 20 years to improve crash avoidance capability and survivability must have been worthless?

 

[stevesey]

Errmm...but it is working..apparently..

We can aways try to do better, but not with the same old slegehammer...

But I thought the previous posts said they were always driving at a sensible speed so didn't need their hands holding by regulation.

If they are all traveling at sensible speed, how do the 'accidents' happen.?

I thought the bit of my sentance you didn't quote illustrated that quite noicely. (That is; not every one does - irrespective of the limits)

 

[Dieselman]

So all the work that vehicle manufacturers have been doing over the last 20 years to improve crash avoidance capability and survivability must have been worthless?

For motorcyclists, cyclists and pedestrians...YES..!

Modern cars are bad for other road users, which is why they are now being tested for pedestrian safety.

 

[Dieselman]

I thought the bit of my sentance you didn't quote illustrated that quite noicely.

This bit.?

(from the Times today).

I know the Times is a respected paper but I'm not sure how that helps..

 

[wemorgan]

So all the work that vehicle manufacturers have been doing over the last 20 years to improve crash avoidance capability and survivability must have been worthless?

And despite all cars having seatbelts I still see people not wearing them. The most bizarre people to me are those that wear seatbelts only when being a driver or front seat passenger, but then stubbornly don't wear them when sitting in the back seats.

 

[stevesey]

This bit.?

that's not even from the same post as the bit you quoted.

 

[wemorgan]

Modern cars are bad for other road users, which is why they are now being tested for pedestrian safety.

Plus cars are bad to other cars. Car compatability will come in before too long.

 

[st4]

But I thought the previous posts said they were always driving at a sensible speed so didn't need their hands holding by regulation.

I don't need my hands held.

If they are all traveling at sensible speed, how do the 'accidents' happen.?

Because there are so many other causes of road traffic incidents (my terminology stands corrected wemorgan). I also note his very valid point re other speed limits in other industries. The limit is there as a law, but I can't see how a reasonable compitent driver cannot judge what speed to travel at. Common sense should be the speed limit. I don't believe reducing the NSL will affect road safety. Anyway, back to dieselmans question re accidents happening and here are some reasons.

I'll list a few for you

1. Lack of forward observation and anticipation leading to the vehicle and driver being in an adverse situation which could so easily be avoided.
2. Distractions within the vehicle, sat navs, phones, unruly children leading to a lack of attention and care
3. Corse braking leading to loss of vehicle control
4. Corse steering leading to loss of vehicle control
5. A combination of points 3&4
6. (My personal favourite)-feet getting trapped underneath pedals or matts interfering with them.
7. Adverse road conditions that may not be reasonably predicted-a diesel spill on a rural road at night that goes unspotted.
8. Plain old driver error, someone can pull out right infront of you.

I am sure you can list more, (I haven't listed alcohol or drugs for you but they too are causes).

I am a believer in Darwinian theory, and driving is just another example of modern day darwinian theory. Natural selection see's away the unfit etc and this cannot be undone.

 

[Dieselman]

that's not even from the same post as the bit you quoted.

Oh yes it is..Post #37.

Bit early for drinking Steve..

 

[Dieselman]

Because there are so many other causes of road traffic incidents (my terminology stands corrected wemorgan).

I'll list a few for you

1. Lack of forward observation and anticipation leading to the vehicle and driver being in an adverse situation which could so easily be avoided.
2. Distractions within the vehicle, sat navs, phones, unruly children leading to a lack of attention and care
3. Corse braking leading to loss of vehicle control
4. Corse steering leading to loss of vehicle control
5. A combination of points 3&4
6. (My personal favourite)-feet getting trapped underneath pedals or matts interfering with them.
7. Adverse road conditions that may not be reasonably predicted-a diesel spill on a rural road at night that goes unspotted.
8. Plain old driver error, someone can pull out right infront of you.

So, which ones of those wouldn't have a better chance of avoidance or reduced severity if the vehicle speed was lower.?

 

[stevesey]

Oh yes it is..Post #37.

Bit early for drinking Steve..

On no it isn't..try Post #41,#42,#46 for where this particular sub thread started, looks like you started drinking first (just off to the garage for my first )

 

[stevesey]

So, which ones of those wouldn't have a better chance of avoidance or reduced severity if the vehicle speed was lower.?

Like 0?

 

[st4]

So, which ones of those wouldn't have a better chance of avoidance or reduced severity if the vehicle speed was lower.?

Chances of avoidance, none I am afraid

Reduced severity, all of them as impact speed is lower. But is it low enough. 2 cars collide @ 50mph, its gonna still be nasty (i.e. fatal). So whats the difference if they collide at 60mph.

My "ungreen" suggestion of removing tree's from roads wasn't completely in jest. No tree's at side of road, much less chance of nasty accident. Remember, its not speed that kills, its the sudden slowing down that kills. Reduce the chances of that happening by making roadsides as clear of obsticles as possible, then you reduce the chance of a KSI if a car leaves the road. Removing tree's also gives better visabilty round corners too, better allowing the driver to anticipate what lies ahead.

My old mans best friend died in a crash, it was his own fault as he was drinking heavily before he drove home and what killed him was an impact with a large tree. If Colin had done this and the tree wasn't in the way, it would have been a bruised ego, loss of licence etc and not loss of life.

Alas that isn't the thinking, cutting down tree's is a bad thing, especially if may benefit road users (heaven forbid, nu lab actually do something that benefits the motorist).

Nah, this is about revenue raising and spying I think now where is recycled to join in

 

[Dieselman]

On no it isn't..try Post #41,#42,#46 for where this particular sub thread started, looks like you started drinking first

Well actually...

I only quoted one of your posts..this one..

Looking at it in perspective these are the lowest figures since records began in 1927 (from the Times today).

from post #37..

 

[Dieselman]

My old mans best friend died in a crash, it was his own fault as he was drinking heavily before he drove home and what killed him was an impact with a large tree. If Colin had done this and the tree wasn't in the way, it would have been a bruised ego, loss of licence etc and not loss of life.

Surely we need more trees then to keep dangerous idiots off the road..permenantly..

No cameras needed there..

 

[stevesey]

Well actually...

I only quoted one of your posts..

What's that quote in post #42 then?