Zero tolerence !
26 July 2000, 01:26 PM
#61
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 1998
Posts: 1,198
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spot on with your posts so far xyzpaul.
It is the perceived threat to enjoyment to be gained from driving fast which is causing people to fly off the handle.
Everybody here knows that driving like the impreza begs to be driven (and I don't mean going _totally_ daft) increases risk, even in conditions where there is no obvious _preceived_ risk. So the point is evaded, and other issues, such as pedestrian safety in built up areas (still importan mind), and other areas of crime focused on instead. It's all just the natural response of people trying to protect their own interests.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not a member of T2000 or anything and I love a good blast along an A/B road at speeds well in excess of the limit where I think the risk is small compared to the kicks. In doing so I'll freely admit that I would present less risk to myself and others if I was doing, say 50mph. Unfortunately this standpoint is hardly PC, and not a very defendable one!
It is the perceived threat to enjoyment to be gained from driving fast which is causing people to fly off the handle.
Everybody here knows that driving like the impreza begs to be driven (and I don't mean going _totally_ daft) increases risk, even in conditions where there is no obvious _preceived_ risk. So the point is evaded, and other issues, such as pedestrian safety in built up areas (still importan mind), and other areas of crime focused on instead. It's all just the natural response of people trying to protect their own interests.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not a member of T2000 or anything and I love a good blast along an A/B road at speeds well in excess of the limit where I think the risk is small compared to the kicks. In doing so I'll freely admit that I would present less risk to myself and others if I was doing, say 50mph. Unfortunately this standpoint is hardly PC, and not a very defendable one!
26 July 2000, 02:31 PM
#62
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 1,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
xyzpaul:
If planes flew half as fast as they do now, would accidents be reduced?
If boats sailed half as slowly as they are now, would accidents be reduced?
If electricity had half the voltage it has now, would accidents be reduced?
I appreciate that you've remained level-headed in this debate, so I shall (try
) to do the same.
What get people's backs up is that there are more cost-effective and more <I>efficient</I> ways of reducing road accidents that blanket speed reductions. Report after report points to speeding not being the primary cause of accidents, therefore any attempt to reduce accidents <I>solely by limiting vehicle speed</I> is doomed to failure. It's like trying to control malaria while ignoring mosquitoes.
It gets my back up because every year, I hear the same old crap about reducing speed limits and money being spent to enforce it, yet year after year people are dying because this money is not being spent where it matters. How many years have we had speeding campaigns? 10? 15? Noticed a drop in accident figures? Nope, didn't think so.
Firstly, why do we allow pedestrians the freedom to walk infront of traffic wherever they please? No-one blames the train driver if a child is killed crossing a railway line, so why blame the car driver? Money should be spent separating cars from pedestrians. Moreover, where there are roads that don't go near pedestrians, speed limits should be increased to appropriate levels. Only <I><B>3%</B> of road accidents occur on motorways</I> yet these are the fastest roads in the country. Reducing motorway speed limits will only ever make a tiny dent in the overall accident figures. We should spend the money on teaching children exactly what happens if they stray off the pavement.
Secondly, as many people have hinted at, the big problem is car-pedestrian accidents, you know, the ones that are the fault of the pedestrian in <I><B>85% of all cases</B></I> (TRL's figures). If these are the big concern, how does reducing speed limits on dual-carriageways help? There are no pedestrians to hit. I have no problem with controlling traffic in urban areas, but by urban I mean roads that go past schools, shops, etc..
I happen to think that Gatsos near schools are an excellent idea and I've never seen anyone complain about traffic-light cameras. These are examples of money well-spent.
Thirdly, doesn't anyone think it's irresponsible of this government to allow playgrounds and parks to be demolished for housing/commerce, thus encouraging children to play near busy roads? Slowing the traffic is not the answer, stopping cars & pedestrians colliding is the answer.
I appreciate your early comment of "we all think we're good drivers so we should be allowed to drive faster", but it is precisely the lack of ability in many cases that causes <I>most accidents to occur where speed is not the primary cause</I>. If the government improved driver training, then there would be a very real and measurable drop in accidents.
I very much want to see a reduction in road deaths (having had a bereavement recently) but diverting all resources onto the speed of a vehicle is not the way to do it.
If planes flew half as fast as they do now, would accidents be reduced?
If boats sailed half as slowly as they are now, would accidents be reduced?
If electricity had half the voltage it has now, would accidents be reduced?
I appreciate that you've remained level-headed in this debate, so I shall (try
) to do the same.What get people's backs up is that there are more cost-effective and more <I>efficient</I> ways of reducing road accidents that blanket speed reductions. Report after report points to speeding not being the primary cause of accidents, therefore any attempt to reduce accidents <I>solely by limiting vehicle speed</I> is doomed to failure. It's like trying to control malaria while ignoring mosquitoes.
It gets my back up because every year, I hear the same old crap about reducing speed limits and money being spent to enforce it, yet year after year people are dying because this money is not being spent where it matters. How many years have we had speeding campaigns? 10? 15? Noticed a drop in accident figures? Nope, didn't think so.
Firstly, why do we allow pedestrians the freedom to walk infront of traffic wherever they please? No-one blames the train driver if a child is killed crossing a railway line, so why blame the car driver? Money should be spent separating cars from pedestrians. Moreover, where there are roads that don't go near pedestrians, speed limits should be increased to appropriate levels. Only <I><B>3%</B> of road accidents occur on motorways</I> yet these are the fastest roads in the country. Reducing motorway speed limits will only ever make a tiny dent in the overall accident figures. We should spend the money on teaching children exactly what happens if they stray off the pavement.
Secondly, as many people have hinted at, the big problem is car-pedestrian accidents, you know, the ones that are the fault of the pedestrian in <I><B>85% of all cases</B></I> (TRL's figures). If these are the big concern, how does reducing speed limits on dual-carriageways help? There are no pedestrians to hit. I have no problem with controlling traffic in urban areas, but by urban I mean roads that go past schools, shops, etc..
I happen to think that Gatsos near schools are an excellent idea and I've never seen anyone complain about traffic-light cameras. These are examples of money well-spent.
Thirdly, doesn't anyone think it's irresponsible of this government to allow playgrounds and parks to be demolished for housing/commerce, thus encouraging children to play near busy roads? Slowing the traffic is not the answer, stopping cars & pedestrians colliding is the answer.
I appreciate your early comment of "we all think we're good drivers so we should be allowed to drive faster", but it is precisely the lack of ability in many cases that causes <I>most accidents to occur where speed is not the primary cause</I>. If the government improved driver training, then there would be a very real and measurable drop in accidents.
I very much want to see a reduction in road deaths (having had a bereavement recently) but diverting all resources onto the speed of a vehicle is not the way to do it.
26 July 2000, 03:34 PM
#63
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 139
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
!!Remember the GREEN CROSS CODE!! he heh he
Flame coat on now
Now for some sensible suggestions you bunch of sodding PC NAMBY PAMBY VEGETARIAN DO GOODERS (**** 2000 that is)
I WANT TO SMOKE/DRINK/DRIVE/SURF MYSELF INTO THE GROUND OR DEATH / DROWNING. Bad things are cool that is why the devil invented them. Good things are Bad by definition!!
Copying Dennis Leary/Clarkson here !!
Why does do people now want to protect everything... bloody hell can't we get lung cancer and liver scerous (sp?) in peace without being preached to.
If I go to a rally and stand on the exit to a 'fast left 5' (or however you say it) then if I die when a driver loses it then it is my own sodding fault, just the same if I walk in front of a car.
Look the only sensible solution is to goto a track day and whoever gets the fastest lap time then make them the transport secretary. Some silly cossie/westie boys allowed to come to as they see to give us good info... on this BBS!
Oh, one other requirement is a combined vehicle and soon to be minister WEIGHT is to be a minimum of 1400kg (incl fuel)....
If I only talked half the amount of sh$te twice the amount of the time and half as much it still wouldn't be as much as some ...
what ?? ..
OH It is obvious ... forget the lap time thingy ..... make Clarkson the the transport minister
26 July 2000, 04:35 PM
#64
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
swa, I like to 
and 
as well. He, he..
DavidRB
I thought it was ironic to hear that the concorde that tragically crashed yesterday was going "too fast" to abort its take off according to my radio.
[This message has been edited by jac (edited 26-07-2000).]
and as well. He, he..DavidRB
I thought it was ironic to hear that the concorde that tragically crashed yesterday was going "too fast" to abort its take off according to my radio.
[This message has been edited by jac (edited 26-07-2000).]
26 July 2000, 05:21 PM
#66
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 1999
Posts: 158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DavidRB
Sticking to cars and speed, do you agree:
1) If you need to brake to a stop unexpectedly, the faster you are driving the more likely you are to have an accident.
2) The faster you take a corner, the more likely you are to have an accident.
I'm not suggesting that we all drive around at 10mph, or that speeding is the only cause of accidents. What I am saying is that generally the faster you drive the more likely you are to have an accident.
Sticking to cars and speed, do you agree:
1) If you need to brake to a stop unexpectedly, the faster you are driving the more likely you are to have an accident.
2) The faster you take a corner, the more likely you are to have an accident.
I'm not suggesting that we all drive around at 10mph, or that speeding is the only cause of accidents. What I am saying is that generally the faster you drive the more likely you are to have an accident.
26 July 2000, 06:56 PM
#67
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
xyzpaul
you asked earlier about why it is people fly off the handle about speed.
hhhm, three reasons that i can see:
1. car speed is ingrained in our culture as v.sexy but v.dangerous - and this sort of contradiction creates v.strong emotions and often irrationality.
2. politicians and pressure groups recognise this and milk it to serve their own agendas
3. the news mass media does not like complex arguments (like that speed might not necessarily be the sole root cause): they take too long to explain and you can't illustrate them with an arresting photograph or soundbite. a bodybag and ambulance is unbeatable every time.
and for the mass media - and i'm thinking specifically about the tabloids who are guilty perhaps more than any institition in this country of promoting ignorance, misunderstanding, bigotry and intolerance - creating an emotional response has far more impact that logically dissecting an argument. it sells more newspapers.
by then the damage is done and the myths are created: it becomes an uphill struggle for logic and reason to be heard.
you asked earlier about why it is people fly off the handle about speed.
hhhm, three reasons that i can see:
1. car speed is ingrained in our culture as v.sexy but v.dangerous - and this sort of contradiction creates v.strong emotions and often irrationality.
2. politicians and pressure groups recognise this and milk it to serve their own agendas
3. the news mass media does not like complex arguments (like that speed might not necessarily be the sole root cause): they take too long to explain and you can't illustrate them with an arresting photograph or soundbite. a bodybag and ambulance is unbeatable every time.
and for the mass media - and i'm thinking specifically about the tabloids who are guilty perhaps more than any institition in this country of promoting ignorance, misunderstanding, bigotry and intolerance - creating an emotional response has far more impact that logically dissecting an argument. it sells more newspapers.
by then the damage is done and the myths are created: it becomes an uphill struggle for logic and reason to be heard.
26 July 2000, 08:37 PM
#68
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: West Midlands
Posts: 5,763
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:<HR>Originally posted by xyzpaul:
<B>
1) If you need to brake to a stop unexpectedly, the faster you are driving the more likely you are to have an accident.[/quote]
... but an _experienced_ driver would not be driving in such a way that they needed to stop "unexpectedly". They would be driving within limits of observation, road conditions, braking distance etc.! The problem is that there are drivers who drive to a (posted) _speed limit_ and not the prevailing conditions, and the authorities are enforcing the former and not the more appropriate latter.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:<HR><B>
2) The faster you take a corner, the more likely you are to have an accident.
[/quote]
Ditto!
mb
<B>
1) If you need to brake to a stop unexpectedly, the faster you are driving the more likely you are to have an accident.[/quote]
... but an _experienced_ driver would not be driving in such a way that they needed to stop "unexpectedly". They would be driving within limits of observation, road conditions, braking distance etc.! The problem is that there are drivers who drive to a (posted) _speed limit_ and not the prevailing conditions, and the authorities are enforcing the former and not the more appropriate latter.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:<HR><B>
2) The faster you take a corner, the more likely you are to have an accident.
[/quote]
Ditto!
mb
26 July 2000, 09:10 PM
#69
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 1998
Posts: 1,198
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Boomer, that last post is at best naivem and probably just another b******* smokescreen, designed with probably your own vested interest of being able to drive as fast as you like in mind.
Any driver, no matter how experienced is not infallable, and may make poor errors of judgement, and an error of judgement made at a higher speed is likely to have more severe consequences than at a lower one. It is also often the totally unavoidable unexpected event which catches out a driver, and causes an accident.
Why can't people be big enough to admit that they _like_ driving fast, and this outweighs (for them) the inherent extra risks.
Any driver, no matter how experienced is not infallable, and may make poor errors of judgement, and an error of judgement made at a higher speed is likely to have more severe consequences than at a lower one. It is also often the totally unavoidable unexpected event which catches out a driver, and causes an accident.
Why can't people be big enough to admit that they _like_ driving fast, and this outweighs (for them) the inherent extra risks.
26 July 2000, 11:17 PM
#70
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 405
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just a few suggestions.
If you don't like the unintelligent way our road system is being managed, join the ABD. A voice of (scientific) reason in the noise of anti car propoganda - the problem they face is the same as *many* other organisations. The public in general have no understanding of science or scientific method, and think they know the facts from all the propoganda they have been told. They need to be told otherwise.
If you support the widespread dropping of speeds (which coincidentally raise money) in lieu of more thoughtful schemes which raise driver / cyclist / pedestian and horse rider awareness, you can rest assured that the government will be doing the least expensive, most politically agreable solution.
This is a discussion that goes far beyond speed limits, and our desire (or otherwise) to break them.
I have driven in 4 european countries today, and also travelled in Norway at the beginning of the week. By far the most distressing and unpleasant journey was in the UK. It is a mockery, and it isn't going to get better.
KF.
If you don't like the unintelligent way our road system is being managed, join the ABD. A voice of (scientific) reason in the noise of anti car propoganda - the problem they face is the same as *many* other organisations. The public in general have no understanding of science or scientific method, and think they know the facts from all the propoganda they have been told. They need to be told otherwise.
If you support the widespread dropping of speeds (which coincidentally raise money) in lieu of more thoughtful schemes which raise driver / cyclist / pedestian and horse rider awareness, you can rest assured that the government will be doing the least expensive, most politically agreable solution.
This is a discussion that goes far beyond speed limits, and our desire (or otherwise) to break them.
I have driven in 4 european countries today, and also travelled in Norway at the beginning of the week. By far the most distressing and unpleasant journey was in the UK. It is a mockery, and it isn't going to get better.
KF.
27 July 2000, 12:46 AM
#71
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 882
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have you noticed the current trend for "community speed surveys", this is where the local mummies & sandal wearers (sorry but it is) get hold of a speed gun and do a "totally impartial survey".
I drove past one of these in my normal < 30mph way very obviously not speeding, They did not point the gun at me nor did they record a car had passed. If I had been driving like a plonker lots of speed/noise/revs I am sure they would have recorded it and used it as evidence of mass speeding. Therfore this survey would prove that 100% of speeding vehicles were speeding.
If I happen to see on of these agin and notice the local paper report the findings I will write in and complain about the way in which it was conducted. I suggest you do the same.
Bye,
Mr Angry.
I drove past one of these in my normal < 30mph way very obviously not speeding, They did not point the gun at me nor did they record a car had passed. If I had been driving like a plonker lots of speed/noise/revs I am sure they would have recorded it and used it as evidence of mass speeding. Therfore this survey would prove that 100% of speeding vehicles were speeding.
If I happen to see on of these agin and notice the local paper report the findings I will write in and complain about the way in which it was conducted. I suggest you do the same.
Bye,
Mr Angry.
27 July 2000, 05:42 AM
#72
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 139
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I hear what you are saying KF but I've lived in Nogland and it is so retrictive that you ARE NOT ALLOWED TO ENJOY YOURSELF and if you do then they'll tax you more the more enjoyable it is. The price of a Scoob over there is around £38,000 !!!!! (i think).
The Tax over there on cars is proportional to the power in the engine combined with some other stupid parameters guaranteed to **** you off. Thing is - they just accept it - vote the w@ankers out I say!!!
Their traffic laws are insane - much worse than in the UK. I had a humble VW then and I had to have the carb adjusted for it to be road legal - it was running so lean then that it had less power than one of my farts...
Anyway: how do we get rid of these stupid t0ssers that rule our roads and cars?? - lets put our efforts into that!
Never mind who drives the safest ... etc .etc yawn.... yawn ...
The Tax over there on cars is proportional to the power in the engine combined with some other stupid parameters guaranteed to **** you off. Thing is - they just accept it - vote the w@ankers out I say!!!
Their traffic laws are insane - much worse than in the UK. I had a humble VW then and I had to have the carb adjusted for it to be road legal - it was running so lean then that it had less power than one of my farts...
Anyway: how do we get rid of these stupid t0ssers that rule our roads and cars?? - lets put our efforts into that!
Never mind who drives the safest ... etc .etc yawn.... yawn ...
27 July 2000, 09:26 AM
#73
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 1,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1) The higher the speed, the longer the braking distance, can't argue with that, it's basic physics. But, I don't think it automatically translates into odds of having an accident.
2) Again, I don't believe that the relationship between speed and accidents is linear. If I am driving within the levels of adhesion (so that I won't fly off the road if I have to brake) and I am able to brake within the distance that I can see, then going slower will not make much difference to the odds of me having an accident.
Boomer's touched upon an idea that I agree with. Speed limits should be set for the prevailing conditions. By "prevailing conditions", I mean a speed appropriate to the amount of risk present at any point on the road. If the speed matches the conditions <I>and the driver takes heed of them</I> then there shouldn't be any unexpected events, other than acts of God.
Wide open roads with no pedestrians can support high speeds, tight narrow high streets can't. The parameters are simpler than you might think, we're talking about measuring distance from the car to the side of the road, line of sight, distance to the nearest car and pedestrian, average speeds of other cars and human reaction times. All of these are quantifiable and many can be measured scientifically.
Humans have an innate "risk" setting. We take in all the available information and adjust our behaviour accordingly. Take, for example, ABS. ABS makes it nearly impossible to skid in most conditions. Stands to reason that it makes driving safer and will reduce rear-end shunts doesn't it? Actually, the introduction of ABS has made little difference to the accident rate. Drivers perceive that they are now safer than before, so drive closer to the car in front. They simply adjust their behaviour to get back to the same "risk setting".
It's the same with speed limits, set them inappropriately low and drivers compensate in other ways, either by driving too close to other cars or by not paying attention. Worse still, it breeds general contempt for all speed limits and ultimately dumbs down the level of driving.
xyzpaul, I appreciate that you <I>say</I> "I'm not suggesting that we all drive around at 10mph", but I'm afraid that you <I>are</I>! The message put forward is not that speeding kills, but that <I>speed</I> kills. Therefore, the only way to stop the killing is to stop the speed. If 30mph is safer than 40, then it stands to reason that 10mph is safer than 30mph and that the safest speed of all is 0mph. If you concentrate on speed as the primary cause of accidents, then this is the only possible outcome. Why do we have 30mph limits in the first place? Because they're safer than 40 or 50.
There are a number of ways to reduce deaths on the road, what we want to do is find the one that still allows the country to function and allows people to enjoy themselves. I don't think it's wrong to claim enjoyment from driving.
Trying to reduce accidents by stopping speeding is literally like stopping aeroplane accidents by stopping flying. Of course it will work, but it's hardly the best way to do it.
2) Again, I don't believe that the relationship between speed and accidents is linear. If I am driving within the levels of adhesion (so that I won't fly off the road if I have to brake) and I am able to brake within the distance that I can see, then going slower will not make much difference to the odds of me having an accident.
Boomer's touched upon an idea that I agree with. Speed limits should be set for the prevailing conditions. By "prevailing conditions", I mean a speed appropriate to the amount of risk present at any point on the road. If the speed matches the conditions <I>and the driver takes heed of them</I> then there shouldn't be any unexpected events, other than acts of God.
Wide open roads with no pedestrians can support high speeds, tight narrow high streets can't. The parameters are simpler than you might think, we're talking about measuring distance from the car to the side of the road, line of sight, distance to the nearest car and pedestrian, average speeds of other cars and human reaction times. All of these are quantifiable and many can be measured scientifically.
Humans have an innate "risk" setting. We take in all the available information and adjust our behaviour accordingly. Take, for example, ABS. ABS makes it nearly impossible to skid in most conditions. Stands to reason that it makes driving safer and will reduce rear-end shunts doesn't it? Actually, the introduction of ABS has made little difference to the accident rate. Drivers perceive that they are now safer than before, so drive closer to the car in front. They simply adjust their behaviour to get back to the same "risk setting".
It's the same with speed limits, set them inappropriately low and drivers compensate in other ways, either by driving too close to other cars or by not paying attention. Worse still, it breeds general contempt for all speed limits and ultimately dumbs down the level of driving.
xyzpaul, I appreciate that you <I>say</I> "I'm not suggesting that we all drive around at 10mph", but I'm afraid that you <I>are</I>! The message put forward is not that speeding kills, but that <I>speed</I> kills. Therefore, the only way to stop the killing is to stop the speed. If 30mph is safer than 40, then it stands to reason that 10mph is safer than 30mph and that the safest speed of all is 0mph. If you concentrate on speed as the primary cause of accidents, then this is the only possible outcome. Why do we have 30mph limits in the first place? Because they're safer than 40 or 50.
There are a number of ways to reduce deaths on the road, what we want to do is find the one that still allows the country to function and allows people to enjoy themselves. I don't think it's wrong to claim enjoyment from driving.
Trying to reduce accidents by stopping speeding is literally like stopping aeroplane accidents by stopping flying. Of course it will work, but it's hardly the best way to do it.
27 July 2000, 10:43 AM
#74
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 436
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[Warning - long post! It didn't start out that way but, ah well ....]
DavidRB,
Good summary and lots of good sense. However, "Speed limits should be set for the prevailing conditions" would be the ideal scenario, but will never be achievable.
Speed limits, per se, are totally pointless because they can never be a guide to prevailing conditions - the maximum safe speed, in urban conditions for example, will vary *constantly* between 0 and probably near 50mph. 30mph and 20mph limits, therefore, give the majority of drivers a false sense of what actually would be a safe speed. I'm constantly annoyed to hear people say that they drive past schools at *only* 25mph, believing that speed to be safe because it's less than 30mph (the same type of people who will shout "hang him!" for the driver doing 31mph). It's impossible to say what the maximum safe speed is without knowing all the parameters that will have an effect on that. And, because many of these factors will vary continuously (and will vary in real time - a pedestrian stepping nearer the kerb, for example, is stepping nearer danger and a safe driver will take account of that), the safe speed will vary continuously too.
Safe drivers will always judge speed infinitely better than politicians. Even the worst driver you can think of judges speed better than a posted speed limit - it's just a matter of poor judgement, poor observation and poor anticipation that prevents the poor driver from being a good driver. Educating the poor driver will have much better results than merely telling him to drive slower. Speed limits, therefore, provide no guide for either poor drivers or for good drivers - they only provide a target speed for unthinking drivers. Unfortunately, current government philosophy will turn many currently safe drivers into unthinking drivers which, by definition, will make them less safe.
One might think that the result of having drivers drive slower would be less fatalities (as has been said above, greater impact speeds cause greater injury), but we'll then have more injuries. There's little being done to stop the main causes of collisions (I don't believe in "accidents") because of the government's fixation with "speed". Since the "Speed Kills" campaign began, the rate of decline of fatalities since 1992 initially slowed, but has recently stalled and most recently has started to rise again. Drivers believe they are driving safely if they're within the posted speed limit, regardless of the circumstances.
The government's current "Think" campaign has the merit at least of encouraging the more vulnerable road users (pedestrians, cyclists, etc) to take more responsibility for their own safety, rather than devolve that responsibility to drivers. The more vulnerable the road user, the more they need to take responsibility for themselves, because they have more to lose. Education is the key.
There are a number of reasons that speed limits exist:
1) they provide drivers with a threshold over which they know that they are breaking the law. That is important in itself, but is no guide to safety per se. In the USA several years ago, Montana abandoned speed limits at night, replacing them with the statement that a "safe and prudent" speed would be acceptable. However, that put the onus on police officers to decide at the time what was "safe and prudent". If their opinion differed from a driver's opinion, whose opinion was correct? The result was several court cases and a decision to reintroduce a 75mph blanket limit on interstate roads purely to give drivers a threshold which, if they exceeded it, they'd know they were breaking the law. The number of fatalities decreased during the time that there was no official speed limit.
2) Government loves control and can't bear freedom. There's a law for everything and, when anything new crops up, they'll create a new law for that too. (Why do I buy petrol in metric measures, but roads are measured in imperial?)
3) By having laws, government can fine people who break the laws. The more laws that people break, the more money government rakes in. Robotic policing (Gatsos, et al) means that revenue generation can happen 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Break the law, pay the fine. Criminalise safe drivers, but don't do anything to improve driving standards.
4) Why are speed limits set seemingly so arbitrarily? The 70mph limit came about because Barbara Castle, Labour Transport Minister in the early 1970s, didn't think that anyone would WANT to drive faster. Why is the motorway speed 70mph here, 81mph in France (dry conditions), 55 to 75mph in the USA (interstate roads), 68mph in Austria and unlimited on certain stretches of German autobahn? The actual speed is irrelevant to safety, but the thresholds provide drivers with a limit over which they know they are breaking the law.
We should all be complaining to government to get them to fund education and training (whatever happened to the Tufty Club, and the Green Cross Code?), rather than speed cameras. If they were really concerned about road safety, they'd be doing it already. However, there's no doubt that revenue-generation has overtaken any other reason for the siting of speed cameras. Just wait until the number of cameras (currently around 3,000) rises to the intended 75,000 to see how dedicated government is to extract more revenue from drivers. How much of that revenue will go into real road safety measures? Correct.
The police know what matters and many police forces operate local initiatives to educate children and drivers. Yes, they operate speed cameras but they must - they have a duty to uphold the law, regardless of how much of an *** that law is (remember beef on the bone, and the current law against selling anything in imperial measures?)
There is an organisation that does talk sense on speed and safety - The Association of British Drivers. Have a look at their web site at
DavidRB,
Good summary and lots of good sense. However, "Speed limits should be set for the prevailing conditions" would be the ideal scenario, but will never be achievable.
Speed limits, per se, are totally pointless because they can never be a guide to prevailing conditions - the maximum safe speed, in urban conditions for example, will vary *constantly* between 0 and probably near 50mph. 30mph and 20mph limits, therefore, give the majority of drivers a false sense of what actually would be a safe speed. I'm constantly annoyed to hear people say that they drive past schools at *only* 25mph, believing that speed to be safe because it's less than 30mph (the same type of people who will shout "hang him!" for the driver doing 31mph). It's impossible to say what the maximum safe speed is without knowing all the parameters that will have an effect on that. And, because many of these factors will vary continuously (and will vary in real time - a pedestrian stepping nearer the kerb, for example, is stepping nearer danger and a safe driver will take account of that), the safe speed will vary continuously too.
Safe drivers will always judge speed infinitely better than politicians. Even the worst driver you can think of judges speed better than a posted speed limit - it's just a matter of poor judgement, poor observation and poor anticipation that prevents the poor driver from being a good driver. Educating the poor driver will have much better results than merely telling him to drive slower. Speed limits, therefore, provide no guide for either poor drivers or for good drivers - they only provide a target speed for unthinking drivers. Unfortunately, current government philosophy will turn many currently safe drivers into unthinking drivers which, by definition, will make them less safe.
One might think that the result of having drivers drive slower would be less fatalities (as has been said above, greater impact speeds cause greater injury), but we'll then have more injuries. There's little being done to stop the main causes of collisions (I don't believe in "accidents") because of the government's fixation with "speed". Since the "Speed Kills" campaign began, the rate of decline of fatalities since 1992 initially slowed, but has recently stalled and most recently has started to rise again. Drivers believe they are driving safely if they're within the posted speed limit, regardless of the circumstances.
The government's current "Think" campaign has the merit at least of encouraging the more vulnerable road users (pedestrians, cyclists, etc) to take more responsibility for their own safety, rather than devolve that responsibility to drivers. The more vulnerable the road user, the more they need to take responsibility for themselves, because they have more to lose. Education is the key.
There are a number of reasons that speed limits exist:
1) they provide drivers with a threshold over which they know that they are breaking the law. That is important in itself, but is no guide to safety per se. In the USA several years ago, Montana abandoned speed limits at night, replacing them with the statement that a "safe and prudent" speed would be acceptable. However, that put the onus on police officers to decide at the time what was "safe and prudent". If their opinion differed from a driver's opinion, whose opinion was correct? The result was several court cases and a decision to reintroduce a 75mph blanket limit on interstate roads purely to give drivers a threshold which, if they exceeded it, they'd know they were breaking the law. The number of fatalities decreased during the time that there was no official speed limit.
2) Government loves control and can't bear freedom. There's a law for everything and, when anything new crops up, they'll create a new law for that too. (Why do I buy petrol in metric measures, but roads are measured in imperial?)
3) By having laws, government can fine people who break the laws. The more laws that people break, the more money government rakes in. Robotic policing (Gatsos, et al) means that revenue generation can happen 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Break the law, pay the fine. Criminalise safe drivers, but don't do anything to improve driving standards.
4) Why are speed limits set seemingly so arbitrarily? The 70mph limit came about because Barbara Castle, Labour Transport Minister in the early 1970s, didn't think that anyone would WANT to drive faster. Why is the motorway speed 70mph here, 81mph in France (dry conditions), 55 to 75mph in the USA (interstate roads), 68mph in Austria and unlimited on certain stretches of German autobahn? The actual speed is irrelevant to safety, but the thresholds provide drivers with a limit over which they know they are breaking the law.
We should all be complaining to government to get them to fund education and training (whatever happened to the Tufty Club, and the Green Cross Code?), rather than speed cameras. If they were really concerned about road safety, they'd be doing it already. However, there's no doubt that revenue-generation has overtaken any other reason for the siting of speed cameras. Just wait until the number of cameras (currently around 3,000) rises to the intended 75,000 to see how dedicated government is to extract more revenue from drivers. How much of that revenue will go into real road safety measures? Correct.
The police know what matters and many police forces operate local initiatives to educate children and drivers. Yes, they operate speed cameras but they must - they have a duty to uphold the law, regardless of how much of an *** that law is (remember beef on the bone, and the current law against selling anything in imperial measures?)
There is an organisation that does talk sense on speed and safety - The Association of British Drivers. Have a look at their web site at
27 July 2000, 06:48 PM
#75
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: West Midlands
Posts: 5,763
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GCollier,
thats a bit of a personal attack!
Maybe i am too thick to know what "naivem" means, but i can't see anywhere in this thread where i am trying to put up a "b******* smokescreen" to "drive as fast as you[i] like".
I agree with your second paragraph, but experience does make a _lot_ of difference - far more than blindly abiding by posted limits.
And your third paragraph seems to try to insult _everybody_. Of course some people like driving fast (i do), but some don't. Whether they "admit it" is up to themselves, and they shouldn't be criticised either way.
As for the extra risks, well we are back on topic at last - it all depends
mb
thats a bit of a personal attack!
Maybe i am too thick to know what "naivem" means, but i can't see anywhere in this thread where i am trying to put up a "b******* smokescreen" to "drive as fast as you[i] like".
I agree with your second paragraph, but experience does make a _lot_ of difference - far more than blindly abiding by posted limits.
And your third paragraph seems to try to insult _everybody_. Of course some people like driving fast (i do), but some don't. Whether they "admit it" is up to themselves, and they shouldn't be criticised either way.
As for the extra risks, well we are back on topic at last - it all depends
mb
27 July 2000, 07:01 PM
#76
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 1998
Posts: 1,198
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry Boomer if you took offence - I shoot my mouth off at times, and am sometimes not very tactful. No offence was intended.
I just sometimes get a bit tired of a lot of blinkered speeding (and latterly fuel price) posts being put up. It seems that because everyone here drives fast cars which use lots of fuel, a lot of people seem to just be promoting lines of argument just designed to protect these personal interests, and often fail to be objective or put forward counter-arguments.
As for the last paragraph, I definitely fall into the camp of driving fast when I feel it's "relatively" safe to do so (e.g. on an apparently deserted A-road), and do so in the knowledge that things are probably going to turn out a lot worse should something totally unexpected happen.
Again, sorry for any offence caused.
I just sometimes get a bit tired of a lot of blinkered speeding (and latterly fuel price) posts being put up. It seems that because everyone here drives fast cars which use lots of fuel, a lot of people seem to just be promoting lines of argument just designed to protect these personal interests, and often fail to be objective or put forward counter-arguments.
As for the last paragraph, I definitely fall into the camp of driving fast when I feel it's "relatively" safe to do so (e.g. on an apparently deserted A-road), and do so in the knowledge that things are probably going to turn out a lot worse should something totally unexpected happen.
Again, sorry for any offence caused.
