Safe Speed Forums

Astounding.

The police do, so does the NHS, passengers (people in coaches etc...), as well as people living near them (noise and pollution).

And even if 5% of KSIs involve a motor vehicle which was speeding (which is clearly bunkum) that's far more death and injury caused by speeding drivers than shoplifters.

Really? If you saw something you thought was unsafe on a plane or a train you'd say nothing?

Are they? If you had 100% compliance with the speed limits on motorways and the number of incidents went down would you still say that?

With 58% saying they knowingly exceed the speed limit on a regular basis (and the real figure is likely much higher) I'd say criminality amongst car drivers is rife.

Would you say any different?

Is speeding a criminal offence? If it were it would show up on CRB checks. There would be many people out of work if doing 36mph in a 30 were criminal

"Speeding is a criminal offence, and a conviction results in a criminal record"

http://www.legalbanter.co.uk/uk-legal-l ... fence.html

Did you mean "Exceeding speed limit was attributed to 3 per cent of cars involved in accidents"? Is that "clearly Bunkum"? If so can you substantiate that?


Police and NHS: would probably be glad of the reduced casualties from reduced onset of fatigue, as well as pulled displacement from less safe roads. The police would be even more glad of not having to strain relations with the public so much.
Passengers: already covered; also, they have a say in how their driver drives (not the limit itself).
Noise: thanks to trees, verges, noise barriers and distance, they're no worse than residential areas (I live a short distance from the M3).
Pollution: little significant difference to CO2 emissions - it's not like there's a consensus that CO2 is going to kill our planet! (before you answer this, you may which to think of the time before oil was sequestered underground)


I expect the number of incidents to go down anyway thanks to other advances in safety technology (that's the trouble with always taking factors in isolation, you can't understand what's really happening).

Besides, I doubt that would happen. Doing so would bring the speed limits, and especially their enforcement, even further into disrepute (against the will of the reasonable majority).


So when it comes down to it, what we're really saying is that the limits, as they are set, are needlessly criminalizing well meaning, safe and otherwise law abiding people! (certainly on motorways anyway)

Would you say any different? If you did, do you think your views would be well in the minority?

Are you for or against increasing the motorway limit?

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

On the scale of criminality, I'd put exceeding the speed limit some where toward the bottom. Insurance companies arn't that bothered about a few points, and they are in the business of risk assessment. It also barely registers on that list for the hysterical that is the CRB. WE don;t live in a lawless country, so perhaps when most of the people routinely break the law then the law probably needs reviewing.

The speed limit on French motorways is about 80mph. So one could drive down to Dover at a criminal 80, but once safely across the channel, would no longer be a criminal. But if one were to murder someone in Dover, then cross the channel and murder someone in France they would still probably get life.

And that report comes with mountains of caveats.




Oh no, it won't kill our planet, but may well make in uninhabitable for us very quickly.



Ambivilant. I think it could be increased where it's wide and open and away from urban areas, but still be 70 (or maybe even 60 in unlit sections at night).

Wouldn't have too much of a problem if it went up to 80 tomorrow, but would want to see that backed with zero tolerance on the higher speeds some people would choose to travel at given the extra 10mph of legality.

Well stats never deal in 'point' anythings ... it is an approximation of the 5% which is accurate for ALL those speeding.
As the 'various' (thefts, drunk, druged, twoc etc) drivers are also included, (this is known) in these stats it is a reasonable a fair understanding that they will be of a good proportion of this figure. It is in fact highly likely that a better estimation is that they are of the 4% of the 5% figure, but I would prefer like Paul to be cautious and propose the 2% to 3% figure that is fair.
Nice to know that you listen - thanks
We are not talking about reductions ? We are talking about within the 5%.

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.

Criminality amongst drivers is only going up inversely proportionally to the intelligence of the people setting the speed limits.

_________________
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've just realised you've misrepresented what Claire Originally said:


You've changed 'crashes' to 'KSI' (for which the contributory factor of 'exceeding the limit' shows in 8.3%; for all recorded accidents it is 5.5%.)
You gaffed!

Remember, there are many crashes which aren't serious enough to make it into the stats summary (i.e. where police did not attend); not all crashes make it into the summary.


Which are balanced out with other caveats. For example, they don't even consider those who are being pursued by the police, or even joyriders who aren't. Moreover, they don't even consider that these are only contributory factors, one of several for each KSI, these other factors not being 'speeding'.


I guess you must mean the deep ice ages we've regularly had, even when there was many times the amount of CO2 in the air than there is now.


You mean keeping the prosecution threshold where it currently is? In terms of public perception, you've given with one hand and taken away with another; wouldn't we be back at square 1?
If that were to be the case, I think a great many would call for even higher limits (and rightly so).

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

The forums are a place to discuss these and many many other road use habits and facts. The website carries the Safe Speed message and is full of all the facts and figures.
It is well known that road crash witnesses are notorious for not matching up with their facts, the Courts are rife with it.


No many times it is down to the Police attending BUT when they can afford and justify the RTA Incident Team, the engineers can deduce the speed of the vehicle. Some Police are better able than others to work on the maths and physics and maybe do some measuring but this isnot available to all, so Police guesstimate. The reports go in and are added up as fact.


Qua ? What ? You have investigators, but your most reliable evidence is from crash survivors ? Those who are in shock and severe shock ? I would have thought that you would rather rely on real hard facts - but no ? Hummm curious not how many Police I know behave !
Investigators collate all the hard facts and the police obtain witness statements and fill in predetermined forms, and their own statements ... anything else ? So now you have bits of picture from crash survivors and all the facts about you and investigators results. That makes up a good picture, but it cannot still tell you for 10% sure what happened and how and why before the accident - it is an estimate based on facts and statements ... it may be close to the truth and for Court purposes it may well be pretty close but sometimes it will be a long way from what happened - perhaps through so little fact and statements, and in the wet little road marking evidence won't help. So many accidents are not 'accurate'. But we can still agree that '5% of accidents involving any speeding vehicle' ? This still includes that that were within and outwith the Posted Limit.

Is this an offer for me to visit your 'patch then' - handy I'll be passing through soon. Let me know and I'll stop be and we can have a really good chat. Be delighted to attend any and all accidents and discuss how and what happened.
Be delighted to talk about how policies effect good and bad driver behaviours. Would you like to that is the question ?
After all, 'someone's' new position may soon entail more responsibility. I would be delighted to try to help you understand the Safe Speed message thoroughly, before too many more people die potentially un-necessarily on the roads ? see the wrong message of 'speed kills' is preventing other important messages getting through or even being researched.

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.

Weepej said,



If you "thought" that you saw something unsafe on a plane or train, would you INSIST that it was unsafe even though you know nothing about trains or planes?
Would you insist on having a say on what is a safe speed for trains or planes to travel at or what height a plane should fly at, even though you know nothing at all about train or plane safety...unlikely...... so why insist on having a say on road safety when your knowledge is limited or even none existant?


Personally I would put train and plane safety in the hands of the people who operate them professionally on a daily basis rather than the WI or parish councils in the villages that they fly over or pass through wouldn't you?

I think that the professional train driver/pilot knows far more about plane/train safety than you or I, don't you?

_________________
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.

Hence why government needs to provide intelligent research, that I may add is unbiased in it's origination.

We might point out the glaring problems with the current Speed Camera - Speed Kills policy, but how sad that those in power cannot see it and change things. As Paul said "Saving face than saving lives".

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.

If planes were actually falling from the sky on a very regular basis I'm pretty sure we'd all become very interested in the saftey record and what was being done to prevent it.

And even if I didn't use motorways I may well still be interested in their saftey record as I'd probably have loved ones that did use them (and clearly higher incident rates mean more of my tax pounds are being used to fix people up).

And then we're into the territory of much higher speed differentials.

Caravans use motorways, so do coaches and large trucks which probaly couldn't travel at 100mph, and some people in cars drive at 60 for various reasons (i.e. fuel economy).

80 - 60 not too worried with a 20mph difference, but if people regulary travelled at 100 that's a 40 mph speed differential. I reckon incidents would rise, there'd be increased tailgating, more people going much faster in fog or bad conditions.

No, 80 limit on open motorway for me with same prosecution levels and higher levels of enforcement.

You would put safety in the hands of the people who stand to profit from reducing safety standards. Myself, I would put safety in the hands of an independent authority - as, indeed,is done for trains and aeroplanes. The equivalent for the roads would be for the traffic police to determine speed limits without reference to the WI or PPC.

That, Steve, is my answer about motorway speed limits - I would take police advice rather than having a referendum. And I suspect that the answer would be the same at 80mph.

_________________
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

One of the problems with raising the speed limit, actual or de facto, to a level at which a significant people are uncomfortable is this. There is an expectation among a lot of the faster drivers that everyone should travel at the limit and that not to so is somehow anti-social. This puts pressure, at the extreme in the form of tailgating and light flashing, for some drivers to travel at a speed beyond their safety threshold.

_________________
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