Safe Speed Forums

This is an idea that has been knocking around my head for some time.

I don't really think it's a good idea, but it's worthy of discussion.

The Highway Code says that speed limits should be treated as a maximum, not a target, implying that drivers should often travel below the speed limit.

But on many roads, including the ones that drivers do most mileage on - 30-limit urban main roads and 70-limit motorways - the speed limit is basically set at the level of a leisurely cruise. Even in the smallest car, a measure of self-restraint is needed to keep within the limit.

Surely it can't be said that it is never safe to exceed such a limit.

But maybe an alternative approach could be adopted - speed limits could be set, not at the level of a reasonable cruising speed, but at the absolute maximum it could ever be regarded as remotely safe on that stretch of road.

This might be, say, 40 in a "proper" 30, 60 in a 40, 80 in a 60, 100 on a 70-limit motorway.

And drivers could be subjected to much more severe penalties for exceeding such a limit - maybe a 3-month ban for any transgression.

This is comparable to the drink-drive law, where being below the legal limit may involve an additional accident risk, but if you exceed it, the law will come down on you like a ton of bricks.

This would encourage drivers to freely choose safe speeds, rather than being guided by a speed limit, but would punish them severely if they went well outside what is acceptable.

Perhaps each limit could have a recommended speed (similar to the current limit) as well as a higher "automatic prosecution" limit.

If the police detected you driving carelessly or dangerously, being above the recommended speed could be used as an aggravating factor, but doing that speed per se would not be an offence.

As I said, I'm not advocating this, but it might help to discourage the view that the speed limit is a target speed.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

I think this is really because the people who need speed limits most are the least skilled and experienced drivers.

I don't really want newly qualified drivers with under-developed hazard perception doing more than 30 in a 30 or more than 70 on a motorway.

It's interesting to note that this connects with my new "certainty distance" terminology: http://www.safespeed.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1560

New and underexperienced drivers have inherently lower "certainty distances" because their perception is less advanced.

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

But this may be a good argument for having two-tier speed limits, where there is a "recommended" speed, which is suitable for learners and novice drivers, and may be taken as a relaxed cruising speed for more experienced drivers, plus an "absolute maximum" speed above which the law may come down on you like a ton of bricks.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

I'm sure you know I would very much like drivers to be able to earn certain speed limit exemptions by getting trained to a sufficient level.

I suspect we can raise speed limits quite a bit for all but the novices.

But if we did, how do we tell / force underskilled and over confident novices that they have to conform to lower limits? If we can solve that we've made a real leap forwards.

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

Now that's a challenge! The answer is going to be tricky as I'm not sure we've got the whole question yet. We know what's happening, but not why. Is it a tendency to take risks that's common in that age group, like the same impulse that makes a 19 year old try Ecstasy is responsible for him putting his foot down? Or something totally different? I re-read the Why? page, but I'm not sure it's there. That seems to cover more experienced drivers, but not novices. I admit as a new driver my right foot was a bit heavy sometimes, but the nearer I get to fartie-hood the less I can remember why . It might be useful if the next time the plod or DFT do one of these surveys of young drivers to see how many speed they ask why as well.

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

Victoria toyed with a maximum speed for "P" (Probationary) drivers for a few years of 80kph (50mph) but the negative is that they tended to block B roads with a NSL limit of 60mph and annoy the more experienced drivers.

I bit of a two-way coin with both sides having merit.

_________________
Ross

Yes I'm a hoon, but only on the track!!!!

I'm certain that the biggest single difference is that inexperienced drivers don't see the danger. This is a failing in the observation / hazard perception / anticipation / risk assessment areas. When they simply don't see the danger, there's nothing in their perception to constrain them.

There's a tendency to drive at standard speeds - not speeding up when it's clear and not slowing down when it's getting dodgy. We don't want the novices "standard speeds" to go any higher. I'm sure of that in general, although 80mph on the motorway might be OK.

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

We have such a rule in Northern Ireland. I think it provokes this problem:

http://www.safespeed.org.uk/problem2.html

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

I'm afraid the only way it could work is to have satellite tracking, which is only a small (and logical) step on from the pay as you drive insurance that Gatso mentioned on another thread. Basically the faster you drove the more insurance you would pay. It's a slippery slope and what's more someone just poured oil on it!

Max

_________________
Tailgaters - Please Pass
You have an Accident to go to!

If it is a simple as that then it seems that better training is the only obvious solution. I'm not quite sure how this could be done in practice. Presumably the hazard perception test is designed to weed out learners who have very poor skills in this area and send them back for more tuition, but on it's own that seems kind of basic to me.

I'm not sure what you mean by "standard speed". Are you talking about 40mph (or whatever) everywhere regardless of limits or conditions? If so I'm not sure this isn't more usual among Walter Matthau lookalikes in flat caps than novice drivers. No offence intended to drivers of a certain age, as I see plenty of Walter Matthau lookalikes who drive sensibly.

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

I doubt my sister or other young women would feel comfortable being tracked everywhere they go. I can see another round of background checks being needed for the staff of whatever agency does the tracking. Besides, tracking can only address poor driving after the event, much as the scams do (albeit in a very limited way). A few might be put off, but if it's a skill problem rather than an attitude problem then I think tracking would be largely ineffective. Better a pinch of prevention than a pound of cure, especially if the cure ain't that effective.

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

If these limits were to be the absolute maximum beyond which it would invariably unsafe to travel. then there would be all sorts of odd numbers displayed, 31, 43, 67 etc.

Otherwise, if the limits are rounded to the nearest 10, we'll always return to the argument that "if X -0.1 mph = safe, why does X +0.1 mph = not safe.

But still leaves the problem of car A not having as good brakes, tyres etc as car B, how do you define absolute maximum as safe on that road, in what conditions? If maximum safe speed for car B in perfect conditions, then if car A driven at that speed ( or even below ) in less than perfect conditions then just as dangerous.

Limits should be guides, fairly enforced with common sense and experience. Just like they used to be before reliance on cameras instead of Traffic Police.

When i training for IAM test my observer was Ex Traffic, once when travelling on A1 he told me about seeing a Ferrari driving along over limit. He followed discreetly for a few miles, saw that ferrari was being driven safely and turned his attention to other road users - after all "he was only exceeding speed limit in NSL, not driving dangerously"

I've been thinking about that for a while... an advanced driving qualification recognised in law and by DVLA, that exempts you from the national speed limits, allowing you to "use your discretion" on motorways and other derestricted roads, which I understand is the principle that Police instructors work on. If you got zapped by a camera while doing so, you'd just declare yourself as the driver and hear no more about it. If you were observed by a traffic officer, he could check up on your car and find that the keeper was an advanced driver, and if he still felt your driving was below standard he could give you a "yellow card."

There would have to be some restrictions - for example you would have to be driving your own car registered in your own name to qualify - to prevent hooligans from naming their advanced-qualified mate as the driver when they got caught, and to prevent newly qualified advanced drivers from renting a Ferrari and getting carried away.

It would also be an incentive to behave yourself where it mattered - a careless driving conviction, or more than one yellow card or regular speeding ticket in a year, would see you lose your advanced badge and have to wait three years to take the test again. So the scheme would provide both carrot and stick.

Would it work, do you think?

John

What care are you going to set these limits for? It's theoretically possible to get well over 1g of braking decelleration with downforce - you would end up with crazy limits well over 200 on a few roads. The alternative, to base limits on the average car, seems very unfair to those with better cars - or even people in the future with their better cars...

I think that is a very good idea. Regular speeding tickets should be ignored if there under a reasonable amount above allowed limits but involvement in accidents where both cars are moving or where it is your fault should give you the yellowcard or down grade you. Perhaps a three tier system is in order. Standard, Advanced and Super. Advanced drivers would be allowed to exceed the limit on dual carriageways, 40/50 limits & motorways where accidents are lower. Supers would add nsl 60 limits (high accident risk) and 30 mph areas (high accident risk). I also think those holding the super qualification should be encouraged to take out learners and recent passees to show them what they miss as they drive around hazard wise.

But our current limits are already based on the performance and safety standards of cars over 30years ago on many, if not most, roads. The concern is whether our driving standards have improved sufficiently to cope with current performance levels. While everyone like to think their own driving is beyond reproach, i suspect the overall standard is not as high as it should , or could be.

it should be feasible to have one set of limits (say the current ones) for most drivers, with higher (by 10-20 mph dependent on road) for those who have passed an advanced test and are driving their own car, as a previous poster suggested.

Whoa there, John!

I am not allowed to use my discretion when driving on m/ways and NSLs at all. Myself and all the lads have to abide by the speed limits at all times. The only times we get to drive really fast is when we are on a job. You know the one! The one where we use the big flashin' lights and the whoo- whoooz! Chase baddies, escort ambulances and so on...


If we ping the only camera we have in the area in the process - even we are faced with reams of paperwork and explanations!

In other words - we have to be on a job.

When we train the lads up (as involved in this ) - do a full audit of the route we intned to use so that we don't upset too many people. Usually - I play the "villain of the piece" in one of the unmarked pools - and the baby rats follow me complete with sirens.

Don't worry Will - we practise it all properly in simulators and on disused air fields and even book a track to do it before they unleash me on the poor unsuspecting drivers around here - and I don't do as per the TV show you saw!

If the route takes, by pure chance, us past our mobile unit - I've warned them in advance that "we're at it!" to cut down on the paperwork afterwards!





The first would create tons of admin work verifying who was and who was not breaking the law. Lot of folks would apply and obtain the advanced status anyway as the perk would be desirable and - we'd be zapping anything that moved on the offchance it were a probationer.

As for the second - Trafpols tend to use discretion anyway!


Just my initial reaction without reading too deeply!

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!

Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.

I did say "I understand..." so if I understood wrong, I stand corrected, thanks for the info And I referred to Police instructors, I guess I was thinking in terms of advanced driver training in unmarked vehicles, not just routine patrolling.




Yes a two tier system risks creating extra admin if not implemented properly, but the computer technology exists to make everyone's life easier, assuming the money was made available. For example, no more calling on the radio for a vehicle check, just punch the number in on a dashboard unit.

Lots of folks applying for advanced status could only be a good thing surely? I'm not suggesting the advanced test required would be an easy thing to pass, and if lots did, we'd have much higher driving standards than we presently do.


Up to a point, and I am sure I have been the beneficiary of that from time to time

The point of the idea was to offer a system that provides both carrot and stick as incentives, rather than just the big stick we have at present, and improve driving standards as a consequence.

John

This thread hits the nail on the head. It is this Country's speed limits themselves that are the problem, not the enforcement. If the urban speed limit was 50mph rather than 30, very few people would mind if the roads were blanketed in speed cameras and a 6-point / £200 penalty applied for breaching the limit. Those that get prosecuted would deserve their punishment, fair cop, no questions asked.

A good analogy I thought of is this - The rev LIMIT on a typical petrol car engine is abut 6800RPM - this is a limit enforced for the safety of the engine.

It is sufficiently high that, in normal driving, it doesn't get in the way. Most driving is done in the 1000-5000RPM range, quite safely.

So why not set the rev limit to 4500RPM? You'd get a worthwhile improvement in engine safety (in theory) and it would only inconvenience some of the people, some of the time.

The trouble is, many frustrated people would remove their 4500RPM rev limiter when they realised that the engine could safely rev much higher. With the rev limiter removed, drivers would have to enforce their own limit. When would they back off? 7000RPM? 8000RPM? 9000RPM? Would we find that as a result of the lower "enforced" limit, the average number of engine blow-ups would actually increase?

Any limit is worthless if it is not respected. It doesn't matter if the reasons behind it are theoretically sound or not.

Interestingly enough, the "inexperienced drivers" situation has a parallel here too. Anyone who's bought a new car will know that an advisory 4000RPM rev limit applies during the "running in" period. This limit is not enforced by a limiter, but you don't exceed it anyway because it is not in your interests to do so.

So it should be for new drivers. The threat of having to retake their driving test, or maybe even having an 1100cc engine size limit imposed on them for 5 years (as opposed to 2 years otherwise) would be sufficient to keep new drivers compliant.

At the end of the day, limits have to be set somewhere and we live in a "one size fits all" Democracy. When we get to the voting booth, we come over all idealistic. It's like the "age of consent" being set to 16. Any opinion poll would show a huge majority in favour of this limit, but how many of us actually waited until we were 16?

Philosophy aside, the facts remain:
- National Speed limits have not kept up with the improvements in vehicle technology and safety and are overdue for a review.
- One speed limit (on a given road) for all times of day and all conditions is too high under some circumstances, too low under others.
- Speed limits are often set for political reasons, not safety reasons.
- The technology required to implement automated policing of a proper, effective road safety policy is still decades away. So they have chosen to simplify the definition of road safety rather than admit the technology we have isn't up to the job. This is potentially disasterous.