Safe Speed Forums

My suggestion is that rather than try to hit 35mph (which many people seem to think is an OK speed to get to in a 30 zone) they'd aim for a max 25 because its a 20 zone.

They would moderate their maximum speed due to the maximum limit (although we know that people push the limit of this and the two are not often the same).

A 10mph reduction in maximum instantaneous speed in residential areas can only be a good thing, it would give people more time to react to adverse situations, and ensure any impact has, well less impact generally.

A 10mph reduction in maximum instantaneous speed in residential areas can only be a good thing, it would give people more time to react to adverse situations, and ensure any impact has, well less impact generally.

So hjeg2 and weepej, if I have this correct, you believe that people driving above the prosecution threshold in a given speed limit zone are still taking the speed limit as an input to their speed selection process.

This doesn't really make much sense when you consider that they'll be just as guilty, and punished, for 37 as 39 or 41.

If they've chosen to discard the limit for whatever reason, then I'd be surprised if they were still adhering to a modified function of it.

I would expect that the anecdotal examples you cite are more likely to be drivers selecting a safe speed for the conditions. A road may well be suitable for 70mph but, if a significant proportion of it's users are doing 40mph or less, then 70 is unlikely to be prudent.

On the other hand, they could also be examples of speed limits that have seen set by rounding down the 85th %ile speed, where you would expect to see the statistically safest drivers being a little over the limit.

There are loads of reasons why 20mph zones are a bad idea, being used as a tool to second-guess drivers' speeding behavior in order to enforce a higher "limit" would be another!

Incidentally hjeg, in pretty much every English-speaking country, 'Bearing in mind' has an "e" in it, just a minor point I'm sure you'll agree.

But in reality they are less likely to be pulled over.

Ooh, ace, you're back! Same old circles, same weak argument!

They're not very likely to be pulled over anyway, more likely to encounter a speed camera, which will make the magnitude of any minor infringement irrelevant. So thats a red herring.

I don't get angry about spelling mistakes, I'm too busy laughing at you

It's sad but you clearly don't realise just how stupid you actually are.

I've clearly pulled the wool over Mensa's eyes too. How stupid of me!

A dozen posts explaining something that had already been picked apart, how articulate of you!

The fact remains that there are a multitude of issues with setting speed limits lower than the desired speed, including, but not restricted to, the unexplored crash severity implications of 20mph zones, the enforcement and morality issues of having a prosecution threshold lower than the "desired" maximum speed for the zone, and the clear danger of assuming a mentality and assuming it will apply to all drivers.

You've addressed none of these, merely offered assertions, assumptions and anecdotes, none of which form a sound basis for road-safety policy.

Speed limits below the safest free-flowing speed for a road, largely accepted as being the 85th %ile speed, reduce the capacity of our road network and delay road-users unnecessarily.

They also have the potential to increase the risk, even if it is only by a fraction of a unit.

Whilst 20mph may come to replace the 85th %ile as the best-practice safest speed, it should not do so without study and understanding to the high level that is already available for it's rival.

Road safety policy needs to be based on a holistic understanding of all it's facets, not assumptions based on simple physics or amateur psychology.

EDIT: Admins, please don't rush to action over my debating partner's ad hominem comments, I am sure they were born of a frustration at the futility of his standpoint, and I take no offence by them.

I wasn’t, Robin, but you were saying:
“Essentially, the crux of your argument seems to be that people who drive a little faster than 30mph in 30 limits are doing so because they are intentionally breaking the law "but only by a little bit". You suppose that in a 20 limit, that "little bit" would be small enough to keep them under 30mph.”

The point here is that I didn’t write those bits that you are apparently quoting. (For the record, and this is a minor thing, I see “these” as quotes and ‘these’ as inverted commas, the two having different meanings. I accept that very few people might do things that way though.) All along I have been talking about the example of 37 in a 30. So as in that example the speed is enough to keep them under 40mph, then why wouldn’t an equivalent amount above the law in a 20 zone be under 30mph?



If you mean by "quotes" your posts, then look who's talking you hypocrite! You sliced up my posts! And as for annoying habits how about your one of constantly trying to put down your opponent? Not your opponent’s points but your opponent.



Oooh, how clever, putting the word points in quotes.



“Most” enforcement? On what do you base that? Baring in mind that almost all speed cameras are of the ‘spot’ type, how much of the road network is covered by them? When average-speed cameras come down in price enough so that they can be used a lot then things will be different; I would then suggest that we will stick with 30-limits. But until then, what I have been talking about all along is police enforcement, which as I think you agree is very limited. So we come back to what you said before: “It doesn't matter how you think the zones will be enforced, there are already laws and guidelines about enforcement, and in the absence of replacements, that is how they must be enforced.”

Which is why I then spoke about limited police resources. Which means that they can’t pull over everyone who is just doing a few miles an hour over the limit, and besides, if they did start doing that then (I believe) the public would moan like hell. Which is why I believe that we’re going to end up with 20-limits all over the place. Are you beginning to understand where I’m coming from yet?



So you won’t know then that the reply would be: “We ain’t got the resources, guv”. So you can talk all you want about how the zones “must be enforced”, but in reality that isn’t going to happen (in my opinion and observation again), so is why we are going to end up with 20-limits all over the place. Are you beginning to understand yet?



What is in the previous paragraph? If you mean your misreading of my position over what speed in relation to the speed limit that I think a lot of people do, then it’s no good trying to turn things around and blame me – it’s quite clearly you who is at fault.

Here’s a good example for you: I said in my first post “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 …”

And you replied “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!”

Do you see, Robin? It’s your lack of understanding, or thought, or engaging the brain or something that’s the problem here.



That’s pretty stupid when your ‘quotes’ are just made up, don’t you think?



How can I be clogging up the thread when nothing has been posted on it for over three days? As for introducing anything new or relevant, I did that in my first post, just giving my thoughts on the situation, and ever since then you’ve been arguing about them basically for no reason. As for ever-lengthening “cut-and-shut” (whatever that means) posts, I’ve just been replying to your posts, and it’s been you who has kept misreading or not understand what I’ve been saying (which is why it’s kept going for so long).



Robin, that’s what I wanted to do to start with, but then you said:
“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!”



You see, you’re being obsessive again. I mention the way you spell the word “behaviour” once and then you go on and on about it. It’s just like last time when you got really annoyed at me pulling you up on misreading your own link about the word “no-one”, and then you started lying about how important I saw it. Why can’t you be humble for once and accept that you’re in no way perfect?



I’m not sure specifically what you are referring to here.



But your understanding, or lack of it, coupled with your over-confidence (you could say arrogance) that you’re always right, is a big problem in trying to have a mature debate.

It seems to me to be very common on this site for people to be rather sure of themselves and to come out with insults at the first sign of disagreement.

I just love a thread with huge chunks of utterly pointless quoting in.

Robin, all I've ever wished to do was come out with my observation!!! I have NOT tried to do any more you fucking idiot!!!!!

Robin, I can see that you pretty much ignored this long post of mine... Found that you didn't have the intelligence to reply to it head on did you?

Speed limits below the safest free-flowing speed for a road, largely accepted as being the 85th %ile speed, reduce the capacity of our road network and delay road-users unnecessarily. They also have the potential to increase the risk, even if it is only by a fraction of a unit. Whilst 20mph may come to replace the 85th %ile as the best-practice safest speed, it should not do so without study and understanding to the high level that is already available for it's rival. Road safety policy needs to be based on a holistic understanding of all it's facets, not assumptions based on simple physics or amateur psychology.

No, I quite agree, and that was not what I intended to convey.

There is, of course, a bell-curve, and the safest drivers are indeed those that drove at around the 85th %ile speed. I say drove because that measurement is no longer possible given speed limits; it was free-flowing speed. What this does mean is that those who drive much faster or slower than this speed are a higher accident risk.

Again, I agree, though your inference is incorrect. It is a material fact that in the case of the free-flowing conditions of the 85th %ile study, those that drove significantly faster or slower were a higher risk-group.

Of course, they were not necessarily higher risk purely because they drove faster or slower; as you say, speed selection is an output of the driving process. It remains, however, that the powers-that-be used to take their cues for speed limit setting from the statistically safest group of drivers. Now they take them from pressure groups, misguided grievers, NIMBYs and those with vested interests in their enforcement.

The primary point I was seeking to make is that a person who generally drives substantially more slowly than 85%ile speed will not become a safer driver by virtue of increasing the speed at which he generally drives to or towards 85%ile speed.