Safe Speed Forums

Thomas Jefferson
1743–1826


Thomas B. Reed 1886


Martin Luther King Jr


Professor P J Fitzgerald
'Road Accidents: Prevent or Punish'
1969

Womens Suffrage.

_________________
The world runs on oil, period. No other substance can compete when it comes to energy density, flexibility, ease of handling, ease of transportation. If oil didn’t exist we would have to invent it.”

56 years after it was decided it was needed, the Bedford Bypass is nearing completion. The last single carriageway length of it.We have the most photogenic mayor though, always being photographed doing nothing

I thought you said the police couldn't tell what your speed was!

Anyway, I wasn't talking about contributory factors, thanks.

I believe it's now legal to bust up coal-fired power stations to prevent global warming too.

No and I never have, you keep missing the point, we aren't a bunch of people who want a licence to speed - please read and digest this fact!

Civil disobedience is an accepted part of the democratic process and has been the vehicle for the extension of liberty on many occasions.

_________________
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

You can understand it (and support it) when laws are patently unjust.

Quite how speed limits are unjust I don't know.

I think by definition there would be some disagreement on whether a law is just or not, or it wouldn't be a law in the first place, would it?

I'm sure if we sat here long enough we'd come up with some law you don't agree with that I'm quite content with.

But what "speed"?

High speed? If so, how high? Higher than the speed limit (is the speed limit appropriate?)? Lower than the speed limit? Too high for conditions? About right? Too low for road type?

I would have said that 100% of all accidents have speed as a causation factor, but how big of a causation factor?

I am sure there is more to investingating crashes than just turning up and ticking the box marked "speed"

When I am doing 0.3 kph, it is still "speed".

First, consider rights vs. responsibilities. You may have the right to drive at or near the limit, but you still have the responsibility to watch out for errors (and other hazards). If drivers don't watch out for people who make errors, they are poor drivers. If there are many drivers like that, expect lower limits.

Second, this site is concerned with drivers. Mere "pedestrians" don't read it, so long discussions about them save no lives. Drivers who are pedestrians already know.

Define 'many' - 20,000,000? 20,000? 20?

Will cameras or any amount of speed enforcement catch these poor drivers? (preferably before their victim is unfortunate enough to be caught out).

Why should 'many' other drivers have to suffer needlessly low limits through absolutely no fault of their own, particularly where the poor drivers (however many or few) are still likely to collide with the pedestrian who didn't look, especially as these poor drivers are those most likely to drive at whatever speed they like anyway, especially especially when there are better ways of identifying poor drivers as well as reducing these pedestrian errors?
This seems like an unfair and ineffective way to solve the problem.


Like I already touched on already in this thread: some of these messages are aimed at the authorities who have decided to prioritise their efforts in an ineffective manner.

While this site may be primarily concerned with enforcement of drivers, it also takes into account interaction with other road users; no one here is calling for drivers to drive as they, especially without consequence.

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

By many, I mean "a significant number". If there is a significant number of drivers who don't care about mistakes, then expect lower limits. If more people do proceed carefully, and with due respect, lower limits are not necessary. I suggest that good drivers should drive nice and slow, to affect the norms of driving.



Yes, some. But that isn't the important aspect. It will slow them down. It's better for careless drivers to be slow than to have fast and careless drivers.



To save people from being crushed to death by cars.



It's nicer to be crushed by a slow car than by a fast one.



I though you wanted to drive at whatever speed you like!?! I thought that was your whole point...




Hmm...

Agreed! I don't much like it, but that seems to be what's happening - and will continue to happen until the authorities use the right tool for the job and stop trying to fix every problem with lower limits and more enforcement.


Agreed!



Nooooooo! (well, I don't suppose you expected three agreements in a row from me)?!

Good drivers should drive AT AN APPROPRIATE SPEED FOR THE CONDITIONS!! That's part of what they'd have to do anyway to be classed as "good drivers"! If they always just drive slowly, they'd be setting the example that "slow is safe" - and while clearly, "slow" is OFTEN "safe", the example that GOOD drivers need to be setting to the road users around them is that "appropriate" is almost ALWAYS safe! Have a look round our roads at the slowest drivers. They're very often elderly. Any driver wearing an unfashionable hat of some sort or with a tartan rug on the rear parcel shelf is usually "slow", but most sane people do NOT regard them as fine examples of "safe" drivers...

...well not YET at least! A few more years of current policy and who knows what people will look up to as an example of good driving?!

No, the drivers I look up to are the ones that regulate their speed according to the conditions, and most definitely NOT the ones that just crawl around everywhere at the same (low) speed in a state of vacant bliss!


..and better still not to have careless drivers!



Really? As soon as it's going fast enough to kill me (i.e. within the limit on the biggest proportion of our road netowrk) I'd rather it was all over quickly, myself!

It's too vague to discuss, I'm afraid.



It helps if we talk about the real world, rather than some fantasy version without careless drivers.



Feel free to try it out at home. Have your wife crash into you at 10 mph. Write down your
feelings. Then have her do the same thing at 35 mph. When you get out of
hospital, do let us know how you got on.

One person's nice and slow is another person's needlessly slow. Imposing the lower common demoninator will lead to frustration and encourage unpredictable behaviour.
If 'more' people do proceed more carefully, will there still be a 'significant number'? That's why your argument falls, it fails to draw a line; there can always be more, and more, and more....


I thought we were talking about poor drivers within the limit? So how will speed enforcement catch these poor drivers? What about the others who the cameras don't catch? Why would changing the limit make them safer? Would they even try to slow down if the limit reduction is needless if they are indeed poor drivers?


Aren't there better ways of achieving this, like having schemes which encourage people to look? Isn't that far better than walking out into a road in the path of a car, regardless of it's speed?
To achieve what you claim, all roads with pedestrian access will have to be reduced to 30mph or less, but even that won't save people from being crushed to death by cars. Just how slow do you want to go?


Then you thought wrong.
I have already expressed my views on driving 'how one wants'. It of course would be nice to do as one pleases, but I’m happy to make the sacrifice of not having the freedom to do what I want in order to rein in those with less of a conscience who would indeed use such an opportunity to do exactly what they want without regard to others.
That’s why I don’t want to drive at whatever speed I want - I don't want anyone to!



It’s nicer not to be crushed at all – why don’t we address this?

Did I miss something here? Why are we focussing on a needless, unfair and ineffective blanket imposition on good drivers (as well as poor ones), when a root cause of this problem lies with poor pedestrians (not necessarily pedestrians in general) and ultimately solvable by directing our efforts that way?
Even if we weren’t going to try to bother to address the pedestrian problem (which exactly mirrors our so-called road policy), why are we focussing on measures that penalise good drivers when there are solutions that can sift the good ones from the bad? (trafpol)

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

who says you will get out of hospital, if you run over someone at 10MPH and keep going they are just as dead. That's why we had fatalities when the speed limit was 4MPH.

_________________
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.

No, it's too vague for YOU to discuss! I appreciate it's not a simple, "tick box" concept like a speed limit, but it's what NEEDS to be discused if we want a safer (and usable) road network!



Let me tell you a story...
Some years ago, there was a rail crash near Hatfield that claimed, what, 8 lives? The cause was a broken rail - poor track maintenance. A low speed limit was imposed over pretty much the entire rail network, rendering next to useless...

Now, let's have the same discussion shall we?

"We need to replace all the railway lines in the country".

"Don't be stupid that would be far too difficult and cost far too much! - Besides, we've got this speed limit in place over the whole rail netowrk so if it happens again, at least nobody will get hurt".

"Yes, but that's not tackling the root of the problem"!

"It helps if we talk about the real world, rather than some fantasy version without broken rails. You're always going to get broken rails. I tell you, a low speed limit is the only way to sort this out"!

Now fortunately, as you know, common sense prevailed. It was the tougher option (and by far the more expensive) but at least we now have a rail netowrk that's once again starting to become useful!



I notice that "not have my wife crash into me in the first place" isn't on your list of options! Still, I guess that's probably some sort of unattainable "fantasy", is it?

Serious question though: Are you asking for a 10MPH speed limit on all roads where there might be a chance of an encounter with a pedestrian then?


Interesting concept though isn't it? 8 fataliteis on the rail network and they spend ££££HOW MUCH????! replacing all the rails. I wonder what sort of KSI reduction they'd get if they spent that on the road network?

Because we have decided to discuss the real world, where people often make mistakes.



We have no way to choose only good pedestrians.



So that we can have record low casualty rates each year.

PS: Here's a story about a kid who got crushed fast on his little trolley car:

http://www.abendzeitung.de/bayern/116532

If it needs to be discussed because it's too vague, then it's --- too vague?



About tracks. But tracks can't make mistakes. People always do.



No, I'd cut you some slack - twenty's plenty.

ISTR that railway engineers value a life at a million pounds (i.e. they will spend that much on the network if one life can be saved), wheras highway engineers value it at a mere one hundred thousand pounds. This is intimately related to both the public's rather distorted perception of risk and the commercial aspect. Rail travellers realise that they are putting their lives in the hands of others and will only do that if their expectation of surviving is very high. This translates into a powerful business incentive to run a safe network lest they lose customers. Drivers, in contrast, think that their safety is in their own, very competent, hands and there is little commercial gain to the highway authority from improving the roads.

And - and you would expect me to say this - if the money spent on the road network was spent on improving the railways and encouraging drivers to use the train whar sort of KSI reduction would be seen.

_________________
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've been thinking about this. I question the level, but the approach is right.
I'd measure it against "years of life saved", i.e. I'd value a child's life
much more highly than an older dude's life. Thus, an accident killing
a little kid is 7 times worse than one involving (say) a 65 year old,
because they'll be dead in 10 years, on average, whereas the kid
lost (say) 70 years of life.

It all gets a bit complicated, though.