Safe Speed Forums

Don't go faster than the one on the lolly.

Doing so is not going to save you much (if any) time anyway.

Again, its the gun control argument for me. I have enjoyed shooting guns in the past, but I don't really want to see unlicensed gun ownership made legal as I understand there are others who would misuse that.

I know, my post was more in the spirit of seeming to wish imaginary or real traumatic injury to the people your constituency says you should pretend to hate.

Surely you must, at least, admit that the last ten years has seen an unprecedented blitz on speed limit enforcement and over the same period, the previous national downward trend in KSIs has stalled? Is that just a coincidence?

I agree with (at least some of) the first bit. I use a pushbike on occasions and yes, it DOES provide information to me which I find useful in improving my driving. That said, speed selection is a relatively MINOR consideration. For me (at least), the biggest improvements come from seeing the road from the cyclist's perspective and understanding better what they are seeing and hearing compared to the car driver. The reverse is also true! Cyclists ought to be forced to spend time behind the wheel of a car for exactly the same reason (although that's clearly a bit tricky with the younger ones)! After all, as you rightly say, the road is a shared space and ALL road users have rights (and obligations)!

As for the second bit, that's been done to death in the past but although it's a popular theory, there has been an overall improvement over the last 50 years or so in vehicle safety and I very much doubt that if you replaced all the vehicles on the road today with Model T Fords, you'd see ANY improvement in KSIs (despite the fact that they were a great deal slower than current cars)! This leads me to suggest that speed limit compliance (OK, within reason) is a MUCH less important factor than vehicle safety.

I agree with what you are saying here, to a point, and I fear we are speaking somewhat at cross purposes.

Those 'who would misuse' speed are those who drive at speed inappropriate for the conditions, regardless of the limit (irresponsible gun owners). Speed cameras are unable to discriminate these from drivers who are over the limit but within a safe and appropriate speed for the conditions (responsible gun owners). Traffic police are able to discriminate, and what's more to do so immediately, without recourse to the postal service.

And have you noticed how much gun crime has plummeted since this govt banned guns?

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus

And it is back to the old arguments.
The problem with laws is that the people making the laws expect people to obey them.
They seem unable to follow this simple equation:
Criminal = Person Who Disobeys Laws.
Since criminals don't obey laws, there must be another reason for making so many laws that are going to be disobeyed by those they seek to control ?

Very strange that the "Mad Mullah" of North Wales police hasn,t passed any comments yet on this one or is M. Hughes not an "ordinary" motorist or as he puts it "A CRIMINAL" to be dealt with using the FULL force of the law

I also find it strange that this case took so long to reach the courts what was the hold up could he have been trying to wriggle out of the case by doing what Yorkshire police seem to do and claim "don,t know who was driving guv!"

_________________
"There But For The Grace of God Go I"

"He Who Ain,t Made Mistakes Ain,t Made Anything"

Spannernut

Have you noticed that when somebody brandishes a gun in public, they send out an ARV, not a camera?
Also occasionally, innocent people are shot when NOT carrying arms - just as innocent motorists are prosecuted for speeding - yet somehow the latter seems to be acceptable to many.

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!

Why shouldn't you go faster than the figure on the lolly? As long as it is safe to do so then what is the lolly apart from an oppressive device? Edit: I know this is out of date but I felt it necessary to question this even though it might not get answered.

_________________
Currently undergoing training with the I.A.M.

Because there is a world of variation as to what is defined as 'safe'. Take a default 30mph road, reasonably wide and straight through a residential area. One driver may feel that doing 45 is 'safe', another 30, another 60, which makes for a completely inconsistent and unpredictable environment. You just don't know what is going to happen up ahead*, and I'd rather have people going slower than or at the limit than over it in that worst-case scenario (which you should always assume could occur)

* I qualify this with the time I was travelling down a 30mph road to be faced with an oncoming speeding Ford Escort which suffered a completely unpredictable nearside front blow out and careered over onto my side of the road and stopped about 10 feet in front of me. The driver looked like a ghost. If I'd been doing 40-50 at that point it would more than likely have been a head on collision (which would have been preventable ON MY PART by both travelling at the speed limit and being observant)

I know of roads near me which are but safe for 50 - which is what the limit used to be.

But by the same token, I see countless signs on minor roads leading off primary routes. These tell us that the speed limit is 60, but in many cases I wouldn't even attempt 30.

These days, the speed limit gives no indication of the hazards one might expect to find. The converse is also true - the characteristics of the road give no indication of what the speed limit might be.



This is an unfortunate consequence of the government's "road safety" policy of the last 11 years. So many speed limits are now set at absurdly low levels that they get ignored as drivers attempt to assess what the appropriate speed should be. At the same time, a generation of motorists has emerged who believe that the speed limit signs tell you that it's safe to drive at the posted limit on that road.

Do you think there is any such thing as a speed limit which is too low?

_________________
Paul Smith: a legend.

"The freedom provided by the motor vehicle is not universally applauded, however: there are those who resent the loss of state control over individual choice that the car represents. Such people rarely admit their prejudices openly; instead, they make false or exaggerated claims about the adverse effects of road transport in order to justify calls for higher taxation or restrictions on mobility." (Conservative Way Forward: Stop The War Against Drivers)

Without trying to extend this tread beyond it's origins ......
No - people 'tend' to drive at the 85th percentile so we *know* that *most* road users select a speed which is safe for the conditions. That means that they may not 'know what is going to happen up ahead'... we are driving knowing that we can stop safely in the distance that we can safely see to be clear in.
It is a simple rule that works, exceptionally well.
As has been stated roads now no longer have retained simple rules - the government is allowing local councils to pick and choose a limit as they see fit, which is inconsistent non-sense. Drivers need clear rules and regs and lea-way to be responsible, safe drivers all the time. With consistent patterns of road systems, we have equally typical results from drivers. But the moment you change this system, you change the culture of driving and confuse drivers.
Whilst most drivers still do the 85th percentile, we are seeing from figures that 75% of drivers admit to speeding, yet the KSI's are still only 5% and take away drunks, thefts etc you are left with ONLY about 2.5% of accidents being anything to do with excessive speed. BUT there is then the percentage to take off that is under the spe,ed limit. So speed is hardly the issue that is proclaimed. however inattention and frustration, and bad observation are far far bigger problems, yet they are not even being addressed.
You cannot ask all drivers, to lower their driving abilities to the lowest common denominator. It is highly dangerous. The limit NEVER makes it safe. Drivers making the right decisions make things safe.



Hardly unpredictable, unless he was using inner tubes or caught on the only big spiked stone, it is exceptionally rare for blowouts these days. A regular check of your tyres can usu tell you if there is unusual wear going on so some indication of a problem should be obvious.
The assumption that had you been going a slightly faster speed would make it worse is wrong as - just to start with - you would likely have actually passed him and he would have had his incident behind you not in front. Then there are escape routes to have potentially used. Plus you would have braked too so any collision speed if occurred would have been slow.
How do you *know* that he was speeding - very many people have no idea and judge speeds really badly. how can you be absolutely sure?
Ok, you state that you were doing the limit, and being observant, - so out of interest, how could you have done anything better, at all to help yourself, given the perfection of your speed and obs ?
At what moment did you observe the first indication of a problem? Could you have been checking your speedo ? Dropped your speed?
Observed the car beginning to 'loose' it and dive for your pre-planned escape route ? what width was the road - what was about what were all your options?
Then - what could the oncoming driver have done different too? What could he have done before things went wrong? Could he have held the car better and kept it more to his side of the road with skid control training? Was he totally over the central line? was there a line? Do you have a photo? Ah I can go on..... and on
Then there are many many thousands of near misses on the road - see 10sec to impact on the website .... and it is the skill and ability of every day drivers that sort it out, and it is our ability to react, that mostly prevents the accident.
However, our aim is to encourage better driving, and safer driving, before, the panic braking, or last second, avoidance action.

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.

False reasoning!

It would be just as reasonable to suggest that if you had been traveling at 40-50 you would have been well past the point that the other driver had his blowout when it occurred. (or if you had left home 5 mins earlier, or later, or if that light 10 miles back had been green instead of red, or red instead of green etc etc etc)

Shit happens!

You were lucky! (as was the other guy)

Thats all there is too it!

_________________
"The road to a police state is paved with public safety legislation"

It's not false reasoning at all. In fact your argument is absurd.

I could have been doing 70, and he could have just as easily had the blowout and hit me head on at 50mph as it would have been to miss me entirely.

I would much rather have a crash (if I am going to have one) at an impact speed of 20mph than 50mph. Travelling at a slower speed mitigates the risk of more serious consequences given an accident situation. An expert driver will know and recognise this fact.

Shoulud we all travel at 70mph and hope that kids decide to run out in the road behind us instead of in front of us at 30?

Wouldn't you favour a system of education whereby the drivers knew when 70 was appropriate, and when 30 was appropriate, and an enforcement system that respected this dichotomy; furthermore an education system that minimised the risks of children 'running into the road' at all?

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

Such an education system exists - it's called driving lessons! You can take it on further with the advanced test, RoSPA, IAM, etc!

Read what these organisations have to say about safety cameras and speed limits:

http://www.iam.org.uk/pressroom/driving ... tip+47.htm
http://www.rospa.org.uk/roadsafety/toptentips/index.htm

That's an argument very frequently used against those who wish to drive in excess of any particular arbitrary limit. I've often wondered whether those who use that argument really believe that they will always be safe if an accident occurs and both cars are within the limit! Would it "not hurt", for example if I'm doing 60 on a NSL single carriageway and I have a head-on with another car travelling at the same (and perfectly legal) speed? Naturally, in recognition of the damage they could cause, HGVs are limited to 40 on the same roads. Phew! That's OK then! IF I have a head-on with one of those chaps at 60, I'd be brown bread but at 40, it should be OK!

There are some on here who wouldn't agree that free travelling speed has any effect on impact speed. To be honest, while I'd love to believe this, I have to agree with you that the slower you go, the less damage you're likely to do if you hit something. Unfortunately, the only place that this philosophy ultimately leads is to the man with the red flag.

I feel that if society is going to reap the (undeniable) benefits of the motor car - or, indeed, ANY form of mechanically propelled transport, it is going to have to accept that there are potential dangers too. Ever since mankind discovered how to make fire, he has had to put up with some of it's more unpleasant side-effects. On the whole, he feels that the advantages it brings outweigh the disadvantages. It is only natural for anyone who has lost a loved one to fire to want to see its use more tightly regulated and restricted. I imagine that the same is true of motorised transport. Assuming you don't want to ban it altogether, there is always risk. Even a blanket 10MPH limit on every inch of tarmac in the country would still see a very small number of deaths and serious injuries!

So. You can prohibit anyone from using fire other than specially trained personnel in specifically designated locations, OR you can educate the populus to use fire sensibly, keeping in mind the risks and taking whatever steps they see as reasonable to minimise them. You can restrict everything with wheels to a speed that (effectively) renders it useless, or you can educate the populus to use cars sensibly, keeping in mind the risks and taking whatever steps they see as reasonable to minimise them.

With either facility, (fire or cars) you will always have idiots who endanger themselves and others - either wilfully or through ignorance, or both, but is that a valid reason to deny the whole of society access to the benefits?

Another poor attempt at a pithy one-liner, since its well established that driving lessons are unsuitable for creating the safest drivers, and further training is optional. Its like training someone to first solo, and handing them wings and an intrument rating! What of the enforcement system, what of pedestrian/child education?

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.