Safe Speed Forums

While it is tempting to answer each point I believe it is rather pointless to do so.
I drove about 900 motorway miles last week and wouldn't have been anywhere near getting a speeding ticket or exceeding the limit by a significant amount, more than 4 to 5 mph for instance. I am about to do another 700 or so this week, perhaps 1500 if another job comes up while I am out and I will do the same.
If the MWay limit is 70 mph then that 's the maximum; if you want to 80 mph tough it's 70. I can do it and feel no ill effects or desire to go faster; why don't you?
I would have no problem dropping a limit if I thought it was being exceded in an attempt to reduce average speeds to reduce casualties. It works so why not use it; it's the arrogant individuals who think they can ignore the limits in perceived safety that are to blame if this tactic is used. If it is...I only suggest it may.

Hang on...spoke too soon, I will address this point.
The dilution of the number of casualties on motorways is often hung on to say exactly this, they are the safest roads. Well that's nice, divide the number of casualties by miles driven and we get a great safety figure. While it is useful it doesn't show the roads are the places that have the least number of killed and serious injures by volume.
The opposite is true for a less populated road, the A683, a road in Cumbria gets featured in the worst roads in Europe every year as the rate of killed and serious casualties is massive compared to its use yet less than a handful are injured yearly. This is far from being the worst road but it's considered worse than the motorway where many 10's are killed or seriously injured every year, nowhere near as bad as some of the rural A roads for volume of casualties.
As the MWay and the A-roads are touted as being the safest because loads of people use them I suppose that's OK...I don't think.
Your sound-byte of the fastest roads are the safest is one of the grossest distortions you can perpetrate...keep it up, this is easy.

The main purpose is the latter but there is no reason why it can't be both...is there?

£120M in £120M out
It's raised it's spent.
You are convincing nobody with this. Give it up.

Fine give us examples then because just like all camera partnership propaganda it just isn't true. If you can prove me wrong then I will stand down but I defy you to give areport showing a mean speed ABOVE the normal limit before it was dropped. You have access to these reports...give us just ONE other wise withdraw it as a LIE.

_________________
My views do not represent Safespeed but those of a driver who has driven for 39 yrs, in all conditions, at all times of the day & night on every type of road and covered well over a million miles, so knows a bit about what makes for safety on the road,what is really dangerous and needs to be observed when driving and quite frankly, the speedo is way down on my list of things to observe to negotiate Britain's roads safely, but I don't expect some fool who sits behind a desk all day to appreciate that.

The traffic police have got to be the ONLY authority qaulified to know more about road safety than anyone else. Their officers travel the road and see incidents more than anyone else, far more than you do or any highway official sat in an office all day. What makes you think that you, or a highway officer sat in his office, knows more about road safety than people who are trained and use the roads constantly?

_________________
My views do not represent Safespeed but those of a driver who has driven for 39 yrs, in all conditions, at all times of the day & night on every type of road and covered well over a million miles, so knows a bit about what makes for safety on the road,what is really dangerous and needs to be observed when driving and quite frankly, the speedo is way down on my list of things to observe to negotiate Britain's roads safely, but I don't expect some fool who sits behind a desk all day to appreciate that.

Someone who didn't have a logical counter would likely say the same.
If you feel this is pointless and can't give an appropriate response then there is no point your continuing to debate any of the issues I've raised.


We're all individuals, no two people are exactly alike. what makes you think everyone else also has the same opinion as you?
A great many feel that 70mph on a clear motorway (for example) is needlessly low. You may well not have any issue with 70mph even in all conditions; it's not like anyone is forcing you to drive faster than that, but a great many feel it is a needless restriction - it's not because they want to exceed the limit (remember, very few drivers set out to break a law). There is also the significant issue of fatigue, even with today's limits (need I repeat myself by asking if you need credible evidence of it?)

The simple fact is this obsession with making limits lower is nowhere near as simple as the anti-speed, pro-camera types would like to portray. There are many obvious confounding factors which even the non-experts can demonstrate.



I realise this may well be a daft strawman, but by that logic you would have to accept the setting of limits to zero - or not use a car at all; afterall, even 4mph has killed. This is the problem with these overly simplistic arguments - pragmatism is never applied. Perhaps you would have realised this part of what I was getting at if you had properly replied to my response.


Perhaps it works, but it's not the only solution; other methods can be more effective, much fairer and leads to greater respect of the law as well as the spirit of the law.
Some people say speed cameras work, but I say this policy and the misinformation surrounding it has deprived us all of a much better road safety policy (cost recovering trafpol, as well as the pragmatic approach to speed).


Like I already said: If the reason for a seemingly unreasonably low limit isn't obvious then that reason needs to be made obvious, otherwise the respect is eroded. Reducing the limit (instead of making drivers aware of the hazards, or engineering out those hazards) to compensate against those who exceed it is tantamount to accepting the lowered limit can be exceeded.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

What you are saying amongst all this waffle is the A/mvkm is lowest on motorways than say the A683.

But doesn't that mean motorways are safer? THAT IS THE POINT of A/mvkm figures. The lower the figure,the SAFER the road.

No matter how much you wriggle and squirm on this one , you know you are WRONG.

_________________
My views do not represent Safespeed but those of a driver who has driven for 39 yrs, in all conditions, at all times of the day & night on every type of road and covered well over a million miles, so knows a bit about what makes for safety on the road,what is really dangerous and needs to be observed when driving and quite frankly, the speedo is way down on my list of things to observe to negotiate Britain's roads safely, but I don't expect some fool who sits behind a desk all day to appreciate that.

I thought it did. They hold 19% of all traffic by distance travelled, they suffer far less than that in terms of casualties – it follows that motorways are a safe type of road per distance driven (even with their high speeds); indeed they are the safest by that measure. What better exposure compensated, measure of safety is there?

As for your A683 example: I don’t think anyone should be relying upon simplistic N=1 type arguments.


Well the way you put it is obviously a rubbish argument – there’s your ‘grossest distortion’ right there!
These are the safest roads due to a driver having the least risk of injury per unit distance driven, not because 'loads of people use them ' Please refrain from erroneously paraphrasing or misrepresenting statements.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

There is no reason why it can't but there are good reasons why it shouldn't.

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

If you as a spokes person for camera partnerships cannot get your facts right without mistruths on these simple facts, how can the general public be expected to believe ANY of your propoganda?

_________________
My views do not represent Safespeed but those of a driver who has driven for 39 yrs, in all conditions, at all times of the day & night on every type of road and covered well over a million miles, so knows a bit about what makes for safety on the road,what is really dangerous and needs to be observed when driving and quite frankly, the speedo is way down on my list of things to observe to negotiate Britain's roads safely, but I don't expect some fool who sits behind a desk all day to appreciate that.

Insults still don't explain your attempt to claim that you meant the same thing by saying:



and:



Gotta ask, does the "c" in your name stand for "Contradictory"?

Not an insult, merely a statement of fact.



Statement 1: "The amount of danger we are prepared to accept should be open to debate and decided by the community at large"

Statement2: " The population at large should debate the acceptable amount of risk"

Not exactly a lot of difference in those statements though the first is a little prolix.



No. And I don';t have to ask but I will: do the last six letters in your user name refer to your mental age?

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

I have seen plenty of them as stated; I don't have access or posses any so can't provide; maybe I will have to be put in the armchair class of commentator...ha ha.
Why when someone posts something that doesn't accord they are asked for references and proof yet those who do accord are requested no such trial by ordeal?
I won't withdraw what I have attested; if you think and maintain that I am proposing an untruth so be it.

If you are referring to me I have no responsibility for a Camera Partnership nor am I a spokes person for them or one of them. Perhaps you have mistaken me for someone else.

Well I can supply reports with mean speeds lower than the posted limit and in your lack of evidence against mine then I believe that the only thing you can do there is admit defeat and withdraw. Now how do you explain your A/mvkm mistake???

_________________
My views do not represent Safespeed but those of a driver who has driven for 39 yrs, in all conditions, at all times of the day & night on every type of road and covered well over a million miles, so knows a bit about what makes for safety on the road,what is really dangerous and needs to be observed when driving and quite frankly, the speedo is way down on my list of things to observe to negotiate Britain's roads safely, but I don't expect some fool who sits behind a desk all day to appreciate that.

Well you are obviously not fit to quote on road safety issues or speed limits ,if you are unable to get these basic facts right. I as a lay person know far more than you and can back my arguements up with facts.

_________________
My views do not represent Safespeed but those of a driver who has driven for 39 yrs, in all conditions, at all times of the day & night on every type of road and covered well over a million miles, so knows a bit about what makes for safety on the road,what is really dangerous and needs to be observed when driving and quite frankly, the speedo is way down on my list of things to observe to negotiate Britain's roads safely, but I don't expect some fool who sits behind a desk all day to appreciate that.

In your experience you have no evidence so nobody else can have seen what is dissimilar to yours, you seem to be a skeptic. That doesn't justify making claims someone is untruthful.
I have a full understanding of the A/mvkm method of accounting but I do not agree that it is useful in casualty reduction; it is only of use in transport infrastructure performance. It is being misused by this campaign to say that faster is safer and that isn't correct; it is your mistake and I have clearly said why.
A county that had over 25% of it's KSI casualties was on its fastest road, the motorway yet by the A/mvkm method it was showing as the best performing and safest but one road of less than 60 miles in thousands of miles was representing 25% of the deaths and serious injuries. Following the diluted statistics the volume of casualties could not and would not be addressed, the A/mvkm method was useless and meaningless for casualty reduction.
If you reduce all casualties on the A683, 2 or 3 a year, it moves the road from one of the worst in Europe to one of the best yet does society and road safety very little service that is worthwhile. Reduce the number of KSI's on a motorway from 120/year to 50/year and make no detectable difference to the A/mvkm figure and society is served well in the saving of death and suffering.
I can't see where the mistake is in that but I am willing to be convinced.

...or so you think!
How is it at the Flat Earth Society these days?

I can supply reports with data showing mean speeds to be lower than the limit ...you can't or won't supply reports showing mean speeds to be above the limit because none exist.

A/mvkms are used by the Dept for Transport in their 2006 guidelines for setting speed limits, WHY?, if in YOUR opinion they are "worthless".... do you know better than the Government?


Or are you the flat earth society...)

_________________
My views do not represent Safespeed but those of a driver who has driven for 39 yrs, in all conditions, at all times of the day & night on every type of road and covered well over a million miles, so knows a bit about what makes for safety on the road,what is really dangerous and needs to be observed when driving and quite frankly, the speedo is way down on my list of things to observe to negotiate Britain's roads safely, but I don't expect some fool who sits behind a desk all day to appreciate that.