Safe Speed Forums

So if 20 mph limits are of such benefit to all and sundry the extension of the safety argument is to impose a blanket 20 mph on all roads in the country.

Presumably we can extend this argument to all forms of transport. 20 mph for trains, and planes as well should see us all completely safe.

Or maybe I have missed something?

At what point do we stop ? man with red flag or zero mph ?

_________________
Good manners maketh a good motorist

Silly all-or-nothing type argument.


I decided to add my thoughts on this subject. I haven't read this whole thread but I'm going to take a wild guess and assume that the vast majority of people on here think that more 20mph zones is a bad thing. But at the same time those same people would, I humbly reckon, moan if stopped doing, say, 37 in a 30. 'You' expect to be able to break the speed limit by a fair bit and moan if you can't, but you also moan with 20mph speed limits which, in my view, are really there to stop people regularly doing more than 30.

You (that's the people who do this) are trying to have it both ways.

Welcome back hjeg, remind me why you're now on #2? Is this a trolling game you're playing with your buddies to see how high you can iterate?

Also, it does not shock me in the least that you have merely read the one other post on this page of the thread and decided to make sweeping inferrences from it. Quelle surprise!

It's a fundamental error to treat road safety as a problem in vehicle physics. It's not physics - it's behavioural psychology. We have crashes when PEOPLE get it wrong.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

You might humbly reckon that, but I humbly suggest that in reality most people here, if driving in a 30 limit where the conditions suggest that a 20 limit might possibly be more appropriate at the time, would more than likely already be doing closer to 20 than 30...

Yes, we might also complain about those 30 limits which are inappropriately low (e.g. the ever lengthening 30's on the exit from villages, where the NSL sign once upon a time used to greet you at the obvious boundary between "built-up" area and open fields, rather than now being placed at some apparently random point along the road, with nothing to distinguish the NSL-legal stretch of tarmac ahead of you from the stretch you've just spent the last couple of minutes crawling along at 30), and would be quite annoyed if a scamera unit looking to make up its monthly numbers were to lurk somewhere along that NSL-like stretch of the 30, but that's not quite the same thing as you seem to be implying.

_________________
Chris

Oh for goodness sake, Robin, grow up. I come on here with a completely reasonable post and you immediately revert to childishness.

It's not a case of reminding you as I haven't yet told you for the first time; I am on number 2 because I couldn't remember the password for number 1. So no, it's not some trolling game. As for my "buddies", who exactly are you talking about? I have only ever come on here on my own.

And how have I made "sweeping inferences" from the one post on this page? In fact, how have I made sweeping inferences from it at all? I said that I hadn't read the whole of the thread, not that I hadn't read it at all. Presumably you just ignored that in your desperation to have a go at me. On to the actual content of my post, would you like to comment on it?

By the way, are you still upset that you mis-read that link (provided by yourself) on how to spell "no-one" and that I pulled you up on it?

Er, what are you talking about? How do you bring vehicle physics into this? I'm really not sure how the above is a reply to what I said.

Fair enough, you are welcome to humbly suggest that. But in reality what conditions would those be? From my experience, even if it's raining heavily people still drive at at least 30.



Er, no, that's not quite the same thing that I'm talking about. I agree with you on the above. But I think that in most cases the 30-limits are reasonable; as I said in my previous post, the same people who moan about the imposition of 20-limits would also moan if they were caught doing 37 in a 30. For me, this is a quality of life issue as well as a road safety issue, and I don't want people driving at more than 30.

The 20mph zone concept is essentially a 'physics' intervention based on the belief that vehicles going slower won't crash as hard.

But vehicles aren't bowling balls. They all have drivers who assess risks and make decisions.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

This argument is bankrupt. Safety always trumps sensibility.

We need to address real road dangers not imaginary ones based on proxies for the desired behaviour.

The speed limit is no more and no less than a weak proxy for the worthy idea: no one should drive too fast.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

Hmm, its not an iterative exercise, but yet, the first iteration wasn't just 'hjeg', but 'hjeg1'. How odd!

It may surprise you to learn that I am more concerned with content than variances within a living language, but I had long forgotten any spelling dispute, in preference to more meaningful matters. 'The link' certainly illustrated the universal understanding of meaning however, so QED!

It certainly surprises me that these forums have no facility for e-mail (sic) recovery of forgotten passwords, perhaps this is something that one of the admins should look at remedying?

Interestingly, prior to disputing my claim of 'sweeping inferrences' you admit to having not read the whole thread, but instead making a 'wild guess'!

Lets give you the benefit of the doubt for a moment however, and look at the 'reasonable' argument that you have based on the only post on the most recent page of the thread at your time of posting:

Your self-stated view is that 20mph zones are, in fact, a means to prevent people exceeding 30mph. I'm not sure the erroneousness of that statement actually needs amplifying, but lets take a look:

In a 30mph zone, the limit is 30mph. If the powers-that-be feel it is vital to enforce to that absolute limit then they merely need to do so via a method that is accurate enough to eliminate doubt to the required degree, rather than using those which are convenient and economical given the revenue they generate.

Given current enforcement guidelines, the prosecution threshold for a 20mph zone would be 24mph. This is a 20% reduction on an absolute limit of 30mph. If 30mph is the goal, then why the unnecessary impediment on the transport system?

Given the limits for speedo accuracies above 30mph (none are even specified for under 30mph) a speedo reading 20mph could be representing a true speed of as little as approximately 12 mph. This is over a one-third reduction from the absolute legal speed for a 20mph zone. Now explain again how the comparison to men with red flags is a 'silly argument'?

I will grant you that suggesting a limit of 20mph for planes is a silly argument, but merely because that sort of restriction on carpenters will do nothing for road safety!

Password recovery exists, just fine, in the forum software but depends on the continuing availability of the original email address.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

Thanks Paul, I never genuinely doubted it did

Great to have you back by the way hjeg, I've genuinely missed a poster willing to seriously engage!

But more concerned with supposed trolling than content!



You say that but you seemed to remember me easily...



I think to call "wild guess" sarcasm is probably the best.



Hold on a moment - again, why do you say that I have based my argument on that post? Also again, why do you say that I have based it on that at all?



I think you need to get out of what I shall call this technical, debating bubble that you live in, and get back to reality. From what I've read on all the occasions I've been on this site, I believe that the vast majority of people who post on this site would moan if they were caught doing 37 in a 30. In reality, to get people to drive at no more than 30 we are going to have to have 20 limits. Personally, I would much prefer to stick with 30 limits that were strictly enforced but people would moan endlessly then; they expect to have quite a substantial leeway.



But in reality a 20 limit wouldn't be enforced at 24.



I don't believe that the average modern car's speedo would be out by any thing as much as that. The last time I went past one of those electric speed signs in my car, I was doing an indicated 30 and that's exactly what it flashed up.

Some people, yes, but I don't think many, if any, of the regulars here would do that, contrary to your suggestion.




It might not have been what you intended to talk about, but these days you can't just use "30 limit" as an alternative to "built-up area", given the way such limits are being misused.




For sure there's going to be some overlap between the two groups, but you seem to be suggesting that all of the former group belong to the latter, which I doubt.




The last time I went past one, in a 40 limit doing an indicated 35, it asked me to slow down... I trust them to accurately determine my speed about as much as I trust the average politician.

_________________
Chris

Well I would dispute that they are misused that much. Maybe a bit.



No, not all, but most. I see that the excuse alternatively would be to say that the 30 limit shouldn't be a 30 limit.

To come back to my original point, we are going to end up with 20-limits because too many people simply refuse to adhere to 30-limits. And in my experience that definitely includes residential areas.

If someone was moaning about being caught breaking a 30 limit in a residential area, would you criticise them for it? Would anyone else on here do so?



Everyone else on here seems to be saying that speedos are terribly inaccurate devices... How much do you reckon yours is out by?

Oh dear, didn't think it'd all come off the rails quite so quickly, but thanks for coming.



So either you have a bloody good crystal ball, or you're Ruth Kelly!



It doesn't matter what you believe modern cars' speedos are like, or even your own. The legal limits allow a pretty significant latitude for overreading, so policy must take that leeway into consideration. You may have failed to notice that not everybody is driving around in a nice modern car!





Are you for real? I've heard this argument before, and it always makes me wonder about the mental state of the proposer. Let me try to make it nice and easy:

If a person, or group of people, disregard a 30mph speed limit, what on earth makes you think they are suddenly going to snap into line for a 20mph limit?

The only group that logical fallacy could even hope to slow down would be a group who drive around intentionally at a calculated margin above the limit. Do you actually suppose such a group exists? Honestly?

Even if they did, they would be far outnumbered by those who religiously stick to the limit, those who drive a safe speed for the prevailing conditions, and the minority who are truly reckless to the limit.

If such a group existed, why would they exhibit that behavior? If its merely an enforcement issue then, as I mentioned previously, the answer should be more precise enforcement, rather than misuse of 20 zones.



Yes, we don't condone law breaking here. Merely lining the treasury's coffers with defiance of the law is not going to see a change in policy. You seem to have, once again, completely misundertood the standpoint here.

What I believe most in here do believe in is sensible and proportionate setting and enforcement of speed limits. Just because I think a limit is too low doesn't mean I'm going to blast through it in principled defiance.

Nobody is saying they will, but seeing as many car drivers seem to travel around at speed limit + 5-10 mph, this means that people would would normally drive at 35 - 40 mph are more likey to travel at 25-30 mph.

Except that, as I mentioned, that line of reasoning presumes that they are intentionally and calculatedly driving around at a specific margin above the limit, rather than a speed they have chosen regardless of the limit (through whatever motivation). Do you seriously believe that they're doing 37mpg because its 30mph + 7mph, or because they want to do 37mph?

Seriously believe?

Yes I do.

People who travel at 35 mph in the 30 zone or 45 in a 40 zone are patently nodding toward the law, but experimenting with the edges of it.