Safe Speed Forums

Our local council decided to reduce most of it's NSL roads to 40MPH, the reason given was "If all the roads are the same speed it's less confusing to motorists". (This in itself could open up a whole new debate)

Unfortunately in order to reduce the speed limits, because the mean speed on all these roads was around 52MPH, they had to spend vast fortunes "degrading" the roads to make them warrant a 40MPH limit.

How can you say, Greenshed, that "speed limits are generally set correctly" when the mean speeds show otherwise and roads have to be "downgraded" to accomodate the lower speeds?

_________________
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.

You do not show glaring errors because you don't have the will to look up the relevant references that are freely available to you and you rely on "logically sound arguments" but deny the existence or credibility of the reports of eminent authorities on the matters being discussed. You must see the failure of your last statement as if you are not expert how would you point out the errors?
I have chosen not to reply point-by-point to your earlier post as you have not even bothered to correctly address the references that you had asked me to provide. If I can go to the trouble to seek these out in my research then someone that acts as an authority and lead in what seeks to be regarded as a serious campaign group should reciprocate by taking time to do so. Your "common sense” or "your own opinion" responses to my submissions are insufficient and facile especially when it was you who set the standard.
You have made a simplistic and trite analysis of one of the references and claim it doesn’t take into account the factors which you consider important; this in itself is not enough to discount that report as your criteria carries no weight even to match your own standards of proof.
Countering points with points you make without basis does your campaign and credibility no favour. You have to do better than “Steve thinks so!”

Does a needlessly low limit encourage obedience?


Only "generally"? What of those that aren't? IMO, limits on motorways and many DCs generally aren’t.
Can these improperly set limits lead to erosion of respect of other limits, even those set properly?


Let's get one thing clear first: very few drivers set out wanting to exceed the speed limit (that behaviour is usually the trait of joyriders and boy racers).

What if so many drivers are exceeding a limit, having reasoned the limit is unreasonably low, and do so in total safety...
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.


Nearly, but not quite, simply because such a method isn’t safe as is.
I would like to see the limit based on the free travelling speed of the safest drivers (likely those with a wealth of experience and who also consider other road user groups) with their being fully informed of the hazards on the given road. There is no point in needlessly penalising, or needlessly restricting, the safest drivers.
The relatively hard part is identifying the safest driver group and doing so may not be practical. What we have today may well be practical, but it is not conducive to safe and considerate driving. Drivers already pay loads in road tax and duty, so there must be enough resource available to use impractical methods.

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

It's not a trap perse, I would agree with you, I would still be completely safe with all factors being judged. Only thing is that 2 days ago the entire stretch of road had the limit reduced to 30. Clearly if 40 was a perfectly safe maximum 3 days ago, it is still a perfectly safe maximum. And before you ask, nothing else has changed on the road, apart from the installation of some new armco, I suspect the reduction in limit will take the credit for that safety feature.

I find it hard to believe that this was the reason that the limits were introduced but agree that it would be a bad reason, IMHO. What leads you to believe this is what was done? Do you have something that says this is the reason or is that what you have concluded from your observations?
In my dealings with local authority spending I find it difficult to see how "fortunes" would be spent "degrading the roads."

Oh, I've got a full report done by Jacobs Babtie that was commisioned by our council to make it all possible.

_________________
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.

Armco is usually required to protect objects in higher speed limits so reducing the speed limit would or may negate the requirement to fit it.
There must be a reason why the limit has been reduced and if it is observed then there will be a resultant reduction in the rate and seriousness of injury; this is a well established principle.
If it is not observed then the designed improvements will not occur or certainly not be as well realised.
If the smarty-pants motorists who think they knows better, decide to excede the speed limit because they see no immediate reason for it then motorists who do that are responsible for the schemes failure.
Is there a note in the Highway Code or any driving methodology that says "while driving in any speed limit, check out it is validly placed in relation to the speed/risk profile of the location and if you don't see one then the limit is OK to be exceded?" I think there is not. Why?

The sad fact is, that virually every NSL road in the country is being reduced for no good reasons. Often councils are going against the advice of the police(Warwickshire and Norfolk) and against Dept for Transport (2006) guidlines. The other thing that is happening is that more and more motorists who once wouldn't have complained, are now seeing through this folly and speed limits are no longer being respected by the "ordinary" motorist.

_________________
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.

Why a traffic engineer? If we accept that accident occurrence and severity is related exponentially to speed then it follows that any speed above zero is dangerous. The amount of danger we are prepared to accept should be open to debate and decided by the community at large not by a self appointed "expert" .

_________________
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

This is why we have "Mean Speed Surveys", they determine what the majority of sensible drivers, deem to be a "safe speed". Unfortunately one guy in a council office can deem himself to know better and ignore these thousands of motorists.

_________________
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 found glaring flaws within the one I did find - yes? Besides, my 'glaring error' comment was originally with respect to the claim of camera effectiveness ("glaring errors on the part of SCP PR staff "), not of your references; I think you got yourself confused.
Like I said, I had actually looked them up; by all means you can give direct links to these so we can digest them – you must have them close to hand already – right? or did you just google the first thing that came to mind without actually checking them out? Time will tell…


I didn't deny any such reports existed; you are getting yourself confused. I actually said I cannot get hold of them.
I have given my reasoning why I cannot accept the hypothesis given within it, you are free to counter my reasoning, and you should be able to do so quickly - if you have actually read it.


Perhaps that’s because you cannot bring yourself to. Now you have a chance to answer all points – see below.
(I don’t need to be an expert to point out logically obvious flaws)


I have never claimed to be an authority, nor do I lead this campaign (I am merely forum participant and an agent of the forums, nothing more).

Tell you what, to save the inevitable ping-pong, here is proof that I looked:
Link 1
Link 2
Link 3
Link 4
Link 5
These are all fairly self-explanatory. I've followed all the subsequent links (there isn't an insurmountable number to check), none take me to your referenced documents as you can now easily see for yourself; you should be able to quickly conclude that I cannot easily get to them. So what else do I need to do to find them? How did you get to them?


Was I right with my claims? You would know if you had read it yourself.


Would you consider, say, displacement of traffic to/from the test areas not critically important for the evaluation of the data given within that document? If not then please explain why.
If you remain with your stance and you cannot explain why then it's fairly obvious you haven’t even read it, or are not taking this seriously.

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

OK, then define "population at large".

If you ask the residents of a village whether the speed limit should be 30 from the first farm in the parish to the last, encompassing one mile of road each side of the village proper, they may well say yes.

If you ask the whole population whether this rule should apply to every settlement nationwide, they will probably say no.

Or you could ask a professional to formulate a national standard for setting limits, and apply it nationally.

Yes, that's where traffic surveys come in (the two black rubber strips across roads.)They are supposed to assess the speeds of traffic and use the 85% rule, which has now been dropped in favour of mean(average) speeds BUT it's being ignored, they would sooner ask Mrs Jones in the old smithy who has never driven a car and been stuck in her cottage for the last five years with arthritis.

_________________
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.

Sadly that seems to be happening in Essex. Any road with so much as a garden shed or planning permission for a garden shed along it gets reduced.

A speed limit is not supposed to be set BELOW the mean speed of a road according to Dept for Transport Guidelines, BUT they often are.

_________________
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.

Or in this case, where it is fitted, to generate a non-existent benefit from a speed limit reduction.

The limit was reduced because the residents lobbyed for it, there have never been any ksi's on the road. It is not a well established principal, it is well established spin. When the powers that be cannot be bothered to actually improve safety, the limit will be reduced, thus the accident rate remains the same, but severity is reduced. I am old fashioned, this is totally unacceptable, remove the accident causes altogether!

Sadly the 40 limit had nearly 100% compliance, now when I drive down it, I have people nearly touching my back bumper, and executing ridiculous overtakes - I feel so much safer now NOT!

This is what I am now finding on the many roads that we now have at 40MPH that used to be NSL. During the quieter times of the day, people are still travelling at about 50MPH which was roughly the mean speed before the changes. The only thing that the changes have brought about are MORE people breaking the (stupid) law, more hold ups at peak times and more frustration. The accident figures before the changes were LESS THAN HALF the national average.

_________________
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.

How many crashes are there each year, and what percentage of crashes are KSIs?

The reason I ask is, there must be hugely more fender benders than KSI crashes. Surely if cameras and reduced limits work, then there are less non serious crashes. Insurance companies would all be able to say that they have less payouts and body repair staff are being laid off.

If you crash, you probably won't get hurt, but you probably will have to make an insurance claim. I for one don't like making insurance claims because it ends up costing me money. My NCB is down to me watching what I am doing and not reduced speed limits enforced with cameras.

The driving I do at work is nearly all off road and forward speed is nearly always critical. This is why my company vehicle is like Battlestar Galactic and my car is just a car.

I have to listen to prime mover and machine, watch stuff going in and coming out and every time I trouble my inifinatly variable transmission there are always effects. However on the road, I am no longer responsible enough to think and have to drive slower than is necessary to cater for the hard of thinking.

I'm sorry to hear the NHS have fallen short of your exacting standards - please feel free to put your proposal into effect at the earliest opportunity!

Still, the fact remains, whilst no system is perfect, we have a choice here:

Either we can go with the (in your opinion, inadequate) assessment of a "serious injury" made by a medic with all the available equipment and expertise normally found in hospitals with A&E departmets...

...or we could go with a "safety camera partnership's" assessment. Are you advocating the latter rather than the former? If so, could you outline your reasons for believing it to be better?