Safe Speed Forums

What is the purpose of a speed limit.
Part of the time, the posted limit can be unsafe - on some roads, you could never reach the posted limit.

We are constantly advised it's not a target, so why are they there?

If the limit is NOT there, then drivers will do what exactly - drive faster and faster until they come off the road and kill themselves? Or somebody else?

If nobody can police the limit effectively, then it is not doing anything useful, and is easily circumvented.

Since we know that the maximum safe speed varies according to conditions, driver ability, vehicle standard, etc. then surely it would make sense to replace speed limits, with something which recognised all the variables which affect safety?

I believe we already have it... Driving Dangerously. Anyone caught driving dangerously can be prosecuted.
If their speed is inappropriate to any of the variables I outlined, prosecute for dangerous driving.
If they have a bald tyre - driving dangerously.
If they pull out of a side road without looking - driving dangerously.
If they tailgate - driving dangerously.
If they are using a mobile instead of paying 100% attention to the road - driving dangerously.

Obviously we would need police officers to make it work, and evidence could be furnished in more subjective cases by in-car video.
However the really bad drivers would soon be taken off the roads.

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!

I have never been able to work out what their purpose is. (other than revenue raising, obviously.)

I tried to sum it up and came up with this:

If it is ever safe to drive above a speed limit then that limit is frustratingly low.
If it is ever unsafe to drive at a speed limit then that limit is murderously high.

_________________
Andrew.

We've got ourselves into a vicious circle now, I think. If speed limits were removed entirely, we'd probably have a bit of carnage. Certainly, in my view at least, nothing like as much as the hysterical "speed kills" brigade would lead us to expect, but my gut feeling is that they would go up a bit. The problem is that the authorities have managed to hammer the message home to a whole generation of drivers now that safety behind the wheel is a numbers game. Even the plod on here recognise that when they say that people always start defending themselves by saying they weren't speeding - even if that's not what the copper thought caused the accident! We've not concentrated on driver education as much as we should have done and we've reduced the number of patrols actually out in the field providing on-the-spot education. We've created a substantial "industry" cashing-in on excess speed without actually preventing it from happening and this has tainted the public's view of "plod" somewhat.

I might be a bit premature here but I've a sneaking feeling that Germany and France will overtake us in the next 10 years as having the safest roads in Europe. For us to remove the speed limits and not suffer increased KSIs would (I think) need a complete re-education of the next generation of drivers right from the start - so by the time they're driving, I'm not likely to be "in the game" anyway. I think the best we can do now is to end the fines system for speeding and just do it all on points. The fines simply mean that rich people can afford to speed more often tha npoor ones. If there was no financial incentive to nab people for this, it would be a lot harder for the likes of me to be cynical about the reasons! We should also improve driver training and increase the number of trafpols. The 70-brigade frequently gloat about how the fines system means that only the "bad" drivers pay for the policing of the roads whilst the "good" ones don't. Well, the trouble is, it's the "good" ones that WANT this sort of policing so I'd be inclined to let THEM pay for it! In fact, as a magnanimous gesture towards them, I'd say let's ALL pay for it in increased taxes, fuel duty, whatever. We should increase the motorway limit to come into line with the bulk of Europe because (a) that's just common sense anyway and (b) I don't think there will be any increase in KSIs and it would be a good experiment to try. We could then "unoficially" experiment with various enforcement thresholds to get a feel for what might happen if the limit went up further. We should fit better camera equipment in plod cars so that better evidence could be got for prosecutions for things other than speeding like tailgating, inappropriate speed FOR THE CONDITIONS etc that are inherently much more subjective and thus, difficult to enforce.

Finally, we should put curtains round all the speed cameras and put them a bit nearer the ground to turn them into photo booths so that when the roads elsewhere in Europe get safer than ours, it will be easier for all the people emigrating to get their passport photos!

I think it was one of our trafpols, IanH or InGear, who mooted the idea of a speed limit being a good indicator of "hazard density". When properly set that's an excellent use for them, especially for the inexperienced driver. The problem is nowadays that too many limits are not "properly" set and therefore no longer give a good correlation between the limit and the level of hazard that's likely to be encountered.

_________________
"Politicians are the same the world over... We build bridges where there aren't any rivers." - Nikita Kruschev

I think speed limits are a good idea particularly as a hazard warning but they have over-egged the pudding. There are too many and vary too much, sometimes you spend time looking for the repeaters to remind you which limit you are in.

I also think peoples appreciation of a hazard varies; for example, some would say one hazard is worth 30mph somebody else might say 35.

_________________
Shooting is good for you and too good for some people.

As far as I can see the only effective reason for limits is enforcement.

I whole heartedly agree that careless or dangerous driving could be used afterall excessive speed for the prevailing conditions is dangerous.....if proven! And thats the point speeding is and abolute offence so therefore easier to establish and no need to prove mens rea.

I have no doubt that the limits were never mean't to be enforced in this way rather, they gave a policeman the option of issuing a speeding ticket if appropriate without the hassle of protracted trials.

as it happens its the same reason that I'm anti the mobile phone law, afterall we don't have a playing gameboy whilst driving law.

I agree that there is some hazard awareness benefit but we do also have hazard warning triangles and could use all manner of otgher signage to warn people upon entering a higher risk area.

My argument to the effect of removing speed limits would be, they only need to relax the enforcement FIRST, and remove the limits when the curent crop of new drivers (and some of the old) have been educated.

In France, the speed limit in a town, city or village, is indicated by the NAMEBOARD. As you leave the limited area, the nameboard is repeated with a red diagonal line through it. Only exceptions to this limit are posted.

You are right about them overtaking us, because they have embarked on a massive education programe - and it shows!

Frankly, most days I see something which appalls me, because somebody gave this or that person a license, and they are displaying none of the skills which I would expect of somebody who passed a test. A few more traffic officers, and these drivers would be more likely to be spotted and have their faults pointed out to them. If driving at a speed which is inappropriate is spotted, they driver should be stopped and educated, not simply taxed!

For the future, we must start educating the new batch from the start!

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!

Can't remember the place but was in the US (hey it's silly o'clock, just finished work) but they removed road markings and a bunch of speed limits, found out that average speeds went down, drivers drove more carefully and accidents seemed to go down. Was only short term and the signs and limits and cameras and accident rate went up.

Ring any bells??

_________________
Gordon Brown saying I got the country into it's current economic mess so I'll get us out of it is the same as Bomber Harris nipping over to Dresden and offering to repair a few windows.

Chaos, panic and disorder - my work here is done.

http://www.wildcrafts.co.uk

montana

Thanks for that, have just pulled up an article, makes fro very interesting reading: http://www.hwysafety.com/hwy_montana_2001.htm

_________________
Gordon Brown saying I got the country into it's current economic mess so I'll get us out of it is the same as Bomber Harris nipping over to Dresden and offering to repair a few windows.

Chaos, panic and disorder - my work here is done.

http://www.wildcrafts.co.uk

That's happened in Holland too (almost). They took a busy junction, got rid of road markings and traffic lights and to their amazement found that accidents went down. The argument was that because just about ALL the drivers perceived the situation to be potentially hazardous, they concentrated on what they were doing and drove at an appropriate speed for THEIR OWN ABILITIES. The thought that emerged was that when confronted with too much information / regulation, we all "switch off" and stop thinking for ourselves. I think it's the same argument with chainsaws - very few people injure themselves the first time they use one because they're aware that these things can be bloody dangerous and they're concentrating hard on the possible hazards.

The only thing I don't know (and I think there was further research plannned in Holland on this very point) was that after a while, some of the users of this junction would be "regulars" and start to switch off again whereas some of them would still be first timers so we might yet see some carnage!

Paul, have you come across this one? it's a year or two ago now, so maybe there's more information on it been published?

I have observed a five way traffic light junction in Winchester. In the daytime there are often long queues of traffic on all approaches to the junction, except the bus only road. Even in the middle of the day there are long tailbacks.

The inefficiency of the traffic lights means that drivers are more willing to jump the lights, and this often happens. On one occasion I saw five consecutive cars go through a red light; traffic coming from another direction entered the junction and then had to give way!

One day the traffic lights failed during the morning rush hour. To my surprise (or not) I was able to drive through the junction without stopping, which was a first. I was making a right turn too! Nobody knew who had priority, so people just waved other people to go or did their movements in turn. At midday the lights were still off, and the junction was quite ghostly with the lack of cars. A traffic jam did form at one time though, but that was because a roadsweeper was going through the junction!

The next day the lights were back on, and the congestion returned.

Make your own judgement; I don't need to spell it out!