Safe Speed Forums

On the vast majority of the UK road network your proposition is entirely untrue,

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

I travel at 30mph in 30 limits. Its quite often I'm overtaken, and the person drives off at about 35 mph (and had approached me at that sort of speed as well).

I travel at 40mph in 40 limits. Its quite often I'm overtaken (easier to do, they are normally dual carrigeways), and the person drives off at about 45 mph (and had approached me at that sort of speed as well).

I nearly always catch up to them at the next junction.

I very rarely catch anybody up on the road itself.

I tend to favour that idea.

In the event of an accident, exceeding a speed limit would then count against you in the same way as would disregarding SHOULD NOT recommendations of the Highway Code, as opposed to the MUST NOT stipulations, the latter alone being backed by law.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

I've been going through the accident stats for 2005...hard going.
It looks like a load of people were killed by busses.
Strange, according to the self-righteous brigade, if we all used busses we would cut the deaths on roads by about 80%.
I think they would increase by about 800% +
Of course, we could all use the figures from the DfT, in which case if everyone drove at the speed limits and not above, deaths would be reduced by....about 15 a year ?
I'm sure that it would be worthwhile to save 15 lives, and the others not quite killed but hurting.
Even if drivers never exceeded the posted limits, and never made a single mistake, and never expected others to make the right decision: there would still be about 1500 killed a year.

Should we do the same for the drink-drive limit?

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

In my experience, the vast majority of the speed limits in NYS are set and posted in such a way that during offpeak hours when most people are awake, most experienced drivers can easily set a pace at 5MpH to 10MpH over the posted limit. Meanwhile, some very experienced drivers might set a pace at 10MpH to 15MpH.

Speed limits are useless, meaningless, pointless, and irrelevant during peak foot and vehicle traffic hours. Even matching the speed limit for more than five seconds requires either lights and a siren, or a desire to hurt many people.

I don't remember the last time I used the speedo to decide how fast I should go. I do look at it from time to time, and wonder how NYS came to such surprising consistency in the size and shape of its margins and how they are enforced.

A mass psychologist might be able to explain the weird equilibrium between posted limits, how most people drive, and at what speed our police begin pulling people over. Further, I know enough cops to be able to say that for every six people pulled over just for speeding - at least 13MpH over, mind you - one will be let go without a ticket.

_________________
The Rules for ALL ROAD USERS:
1) No one gets hurt
2) Nothing gets hit, except to protect others; see Rule#1
3) The Laws of Physics are invincible and immutable - so-called 'laws' of men are not
4) You are always immediately and ultimately responsible for your safety first, then proximately responsible for everyone's
Do not let other road users' mistakes become yours, nor yours become others
5) The rest, including laws of the land, is thoughtful observation, prescience, etiquette, decorum, and cooperation

I'm a bit tempted to say yes, but I honestly don't know, Peter. Generally speaking I'm in favour of using our own judgement, but learning how to do that better, rather than being constrained by rigid laws.

I would be interested in other views on this, in order to hear some of the pros and cons, and see what emerges from that.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

I suppose it might be possible that laws seep into the conciousness of a nation, and after a while are simply not needed.

Can't think of any though.

The problem comes down to policing by numbers.

Numbers are great for measuring absolute things (like speed and alcohol levels as been discussed here) but are not very good at defining subjective issues, such as "safety".

Humans as individuals do not conform to absolutes, nature decrees otherwise, I think as societies we tend towards numbers, but I suppose that is statistics.

_________________
It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.

Upton Sinclair

So it's just a hunch then.

_________________
It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.

Upton Sinclair

No, I've read a lot about the pros and cons of numerical speed control, and have never changed my mind that its a good idea.

And that we have speed limits at all indicates this.

Montana removed speed limits and the KSi's fell.

Speed limit enforcement is a tool that the police can use for policing the road. They make a poor proxy for road safety.

If speed limits are an indicator that slower is safer why are not all speed limits 5, or 3 or 4 or 12? (Choose your own measure.)

_________________
It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.

Upton Sinclair

I don't believe in any numerical limits as they don't take into account the situation at the time.

The breath/blood testing devices don't directly measure 'drunkenness' anyway.

For every "must never exceed this number" rule there can be a situation where exceeding that number would be the best thing to do.
Like if you have a few people out in a car, the driver is sober and everyone else has had a drink, and for whatever reason the driver is injured and needs to get to hospital pretty quickly then having the least drunk person drive towards the hospital (preferably with an ambulance coming the other way?) would be better than just leaving him to die.

Then there's the person who passes the tests because they haven't had anything to drink. But they've had 5 cannabis cakes.

I don't believe anyone should be driving if they aren't in a fit state to do so for whatever reason unless doing so would be more likely to save life than not doing so.

Alcohol affects different people in different amounts, so a number isn't good enough.

The roads I take to work now show how silly speed limits are. They are all unclassified single carriageways. Only one speed limit until I get into town. Otherwise they are only NSL. On one of the roads I can normally do 60-80 on the straight bits, but some of the bends 30 would be pushing it. Come across a lorry or APC and things change completely.

_________________
Andrew.

Montana removed rural speed limits - it did not remove urban speed limits.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

Yes I appreciate the caveat, however the point was that speed limits do not necessarily reduce KSis and I believe that where trialled in Montana it was the case that KSIs fell.

Cheers

Paul

_________________
It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.

Upton Sinclair

Do you travel at those speed all the time?

_________________
www.thatsnews.org.uk / www.thatsnews.blogspot.com / http://thatsmotoring.blogspot.com/

You're an aspiring CityRover driver, aren't you weepej

_________________
Simon

Rather than quoting quoted quotations ad infinitum ...
Weepej, now that this stupid Yank has given up - electrically disabled - his speedometer, how long will it take before I:
A) become a KSI statistic?
B) am involved on a collision which hurts no one, but damages either my personal car, my taxi (that speedo is merely covered during my shift) or other properties?
C) get stopped by a police officer or trooper for either driving over the posted limit or driving too fast for conditions?

By the way, I don't miss it at all. Nor did I miss the training wheels on my bike any more than I imagine one might upon deciding the time had come to set aside their crutches.

_________________
The Rules for ALL ROAD USERS:
1) No one gets hurt
2) Nothing gets hit, except to protect others; see Rule#1
3) The Laws of Physics are invincible and immutable - so-called 'laws' of men are not
4) You are always immediately and ultimately responsible for your safety first, then proximately responsible for everyone's
Do not let other road users' mistakes become yours, nor yours become others
5) The rest, including laws of the land, is thoughtful observation, prescience, etiquette, decorum, and cooperation

Sorry a person own opinion is not proof.

It's the "are able to" which is the problem. For example, in what way "are they able to"? If they are stuck in a jam with a bunch of other drivers, they are not able to. If they try to overtake a bunch of drivers who are inferior to them, they could be killed if one pulls out, so they are "not able to". Basically, there are hundreds of ways in which drivers with advanced skills are not able to drive faster or safer than other "ordinary" drivers, so it is manifestly obvious that there can be no general acceptance - it depends on the circumstances.



I don't think the level of the speed limits are "designed" as such. The fact that they each lie on a decimal boundary (30 mph, 40mph ...) suggest they are set, not at scientifically verifiable levels, but at memorable ones.

In short, the levels of the limit are set via a combination of science, common sense, cooperation and good reason. Oh, and politics of course, because we all (or at least most of us) have to agree when all is said and done.