Safe Speed Forums

One of the best arguments against fixed, arbitrary limits I've heard yet!

mpaton2004, do you think there can ever be any such thing as a speed limit which is too low, or not? It's a simple enough question, and one that you must have a "yes" or "no" opinion on.

If "yes", how does this square with "Slower is safer" (or, as you put it, "Travelling at a slower speed mitigates the risk of more serious consequences given an accident situation")? Does "Slower is safer" suddenly stop being true at a certain speed, and if so, why? And how do you determine when that speed is reached?

If "no", then presumably you would be happy with <1mph speed limits everywhere?

From experience it seems that camera advocates are extremely reluctant to answer this line of questioning. Presumably they're afraid of their simplistic "Slower is safer" rubbish being exposed for what it is. But if they know it's rubbish then why do they support cameras at all? Obviously with people like weepej it's because they hate cars, but with those who don't have an ulterior motive like that, it doesn't seem logical. The best I can come up with is "I don't want to answer that line of questioning because I'll be forced into an admission that cameras don't work, but I still support cameras, because I have a gut feeling that they do work". Unfortunately we can't base road safety policy on gut feeling alone.

_________________
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)

This thread is getting a bit off topic just to point out I am aware of that. The blow out could have been caused by a piece of debry in the road that the driver of the vehicle did not observe. Or it could have been because they didn't check their tires. You say you were "faced" with this Escort which sounds like it appeared rather unexpectedly to you, if you can see less then you would slow down regardless of the speed limit. I must say there is a difference between 30 in a narrow residential area and 90 on an open clear motorway where you can see for literally miles ahead (that's not in reference to the incident in this topic, just an example). At the end of the day it all boils down to traveling at an appropiate speed for the conditions.

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

I don't have a problem with that, and I started this thread. Firstly, Hughes is (unfortunately) back on the road by now (at least I assume he is). Secondly, topic drift is inevitable. Go for it.


All sensible stuff. Here's hoping that you get a sensible reply.

_________________
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)

Of course. But it doesn't mean you can exceed them.

For example, there's a major road that I frequent regularly that had a section of it reduced from NSL to 40 due to a spate of incidents involving people travelling too fast round a fairly sharp bend. (It's now classified as a 'red' route for casualties, and has those 'xx casualties in 3 years' boards up) - now on the face of it, prior to the bend, probably about a quarter of a mile before it seems like a ridiculously low speed to be travelling at and many people ignore it, travel at 60+ and slam on the anchors for the bend. There's also now a speed differential of probably 30mph between the slowest vehicles (excluding bicycles) and the fastest.

My point is, if the idiots who still continue to barrel down the road and slam on the anchors for the bend decided to travel at the 40mph limit, we'd have:

a) no speeding
b) a calmer and more predictable environment
c) reduced speed differentials resulting in less tailgating and ultimately less traffic jams with the accordion effect caused by rash braking
d) a likelihood of reduced accidents on the bend

The time differential saved by travelling faster here is absolutely minimal.



I believe the appropriate speed is one that is BOTH legal and appropriate for the conditions of the road.

"Slower is safer" (which ironically is the slogan of a number of SCPs) is, I'll admit, a loose term - I take it to mean a variety of things - for example "not taking a left hand 40mph corner at 60 and ending up on the other side of the road" or "make sure you're travelling at walking pace and not the speed limit past double parked cars at school chucking out time". You'd possibly be surprised how many people just blat along without a second thought.



I do support the use of cameras - not as a replacement for TP (which is one area I think we can agree on) but as a complement. From the published evidence which I have read over the years, as well as Paul's research - it appears that cameras do work and give an overall benefit to road safety, and until someone can without doubt prove they don't, I'm afraid my stance will remain unchanged.

Irrespective of how the blow out occured, it happened. If the driver had been travelling at 90 on this piece of road, the car possibly would have rolled. The consequences of that would have been likely fatal (for both myself and themselves).

Granted a tyre blowout is rare if the tyres are in good condition and at the correct pressure, etc - but it just goes to show you how unpredictable some things can be. The road you think is clear just might not be 5 seconds later.

Lower speed limits are in place simply to attempt to mitigate the seriousness of an accident should one occur - it's a tradeoff of risk versus the neccessity of people to get to places. People on here and on other fora belittle the simplicity of the statement "the faster you go the harder you hit" but it boils down ULTIMATELY to Newtons 2nd law and the formula F= (mv-mu) / t!

I still say it is false reasoning, and here is why.

There are certainly accidents whose cause and outcome are affected by the decision at which the driver chooses to travel. (most of which have little to do with posted limits) Such as losing control when rounding a corner (loss of grip) or hitting a pedestrian or parked vehicle whist doing the same (not being able to stop within the distance that you know to be clear) however your incident is not one of them

The incident to which you refer is a completely random and unexpected one. The fact that you were able to stop and avoid a collision may well have something to do with your observational skills and swift reactions, but it has nothing to do with the fact that you chose to drive at 30 (and even less to do with the fact that you were “Obeying the limit”)

Here is my own personal example of an identical “Class” of accident.

Some years ago I was visiting my parents. They live on a bend; the driveway is long and is barred by a gate, which my parents chose to keep closed.

To enter, I pull up in front of the gate, get out, open it, drive through, get out, close it and proceed down the drive.

However, on this occasion I couldn’t be arsed to shut the gate since I wasn’t staying long. Seconds (I saw the whole thing in the RVM) after I started moving down the drive a vehicle lost control on the bend (he was driving too fast) crashed through my parents hedge and ploughed through the driveway just where I would have been standing had I been closing the gates as I normally would have done.

This is exactly the same “class” of incident as yours!

Are you SERIOUSLY suggesting that it was my decision not to close the gates that saved my life? Should I never close the gates again just in case this unlikely course of events repeats itself? Should I sit smugly on my high horse claiming that closing gates is dangerous and that people should be forbidden from doing it??

Thats a rain dance argument!

in fact It was luck, pure and simple! As it was for you! Your speed only seems relevant in hindsight. You avoided a crash by the skin of your teeth and said to yourself “Thank goodness I wasn’t going faster” you could just as easily have been travelling faster (In a of course ) and seen the whole thing in your own RVM and said “Thank goodness I wasn’t going slower”!



You could just as easily have been trotting along on your own high horse at 30 MPH and he could have had his blow-out 10 yards later and there would have been nothing you could have done about it, despite your “Obeying the limit” Would you conclude from that that 30 was too fast and that you should always drive at 20 in future??

Oh, and as for children running across roads. Well (I guess “Think of the children” had to come up sooner or later didn’t it) do you drive at on motorways-Just in case?? (It does happen you know)

Do you believe that you should never drive faster than 30 just in case the guy coming the other way has a blow-out??

Do you walk around wearing an armoured helmet to protect yourself from falling space junk?

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

Driving too fast for the conditions you mean Speed limits are there to remove the "loss of grip" accidents as they tend to be set at the worst case. 'tis why you have "Sharp bend - max speed 40" signs and the like - if you choose to ignore them as you think it's an absurd recommendation and then lose control, then well it's your own fault!



Another example of going too fast for the conditions



Correct, and that's where the general "Slower is safer" argument rears its head!



It isn't at all. The incident was caused not by an unforseeable event, but by someone travelling too fast for the bend, either by choice, or because they failed to observe the road correctly.

Apart from the joy-riding yobs - most do drive at 85th percentile in a free flow on these roads. I look at the A666 when you exit from M61 and turn right in the Bolton direction. This is a very wide road.. houses situated way back and they all have steep steps/driveways up to them. Further on .. it has a field .. one of my sisters keeps a horse there. That's how I know this road I was meeting her there once. I did note there was a speed cam behind a bus shelter near a petrol station

Never noticed anyone driving overly fast on this road. Sis says it was always one historically which locals associate as "scam zone" and it seems only "non-locals" will be above 30 mph along this one per the girls.





How do you know he was at high speed? If he had had a blow out so suddenly he would have lost it anyway. He could have had this just as you approached at 20 mph or been parked up even. Wrong place .. wrong time.. "sliding doors" situation.

Guy may have been negligent in maintaining vehicle.. but you can glean much by observing road position and general handling of the cars around you no matter what speed you are at when you apply COAST principles

But in any case .. blow outs are fairly rare thankfully. You seem to meet far more twazaks and half baked pretzels and get upset by more twazaks than we do Maybe we just spot 'em faster

_________________
If you want to get to heaven - you have to raise a little hell!

Smilies are contagious
They are just like the flu
We use our smilies on YOU today
Now Good Causes are smiling too!

KEEP SMILING
It makes folk wonder just what you REALLY got up to last night!

Smily to penny.. penny to pound
safespeed prospers-smiles all round! !
But the real message? SMILE.. GO ON ! DO IT! and the world will smile with you!
Enjoy life! You only have the one bite at it.

What if there is a problem with your tyres, or suspension, or its very wet on the road, or black ice there, or oil on the road, the steering wheel comes off in your hand, or or or.......
The 40 mph limit would not save you. The speed limit cannot take into account what is happening to your car, the road or other cars around you. As a driver you take account of these factors and drive at an appropriate speed.

_________________
Oct 11 Birmingham Half Marathon. I am running for the British Heart Foundation.
http://www.justgiving.com/Rob-Taylor

Again it's about being able to stop in the distance you can see to be clear .. safely and on your own side of the road within the shifting limit points

I do not look at the speedo here .. nor does Wildy .. we concentrate on the curve and keeping it steady and smooth throughout .. keeping a steady position troughout without any braking or jolting to our passengers. (especially IG who gets a bit cross if you jolt him out of a snooze )




Not applying COAST would be the mistake here .. Guy allegedly had a blow out.. panicked and lost it. We do not know if he was "speeding" - but I think if he had been at 50 mph or more at the time as alleged - he would have been into one of the residential houses or garden walls..




Not really. The bus driver who coughed a lot was not speeding He still ended up in court on a "dangerous charge".

Had he had a blow out .. then he still may have killed the lolly lady just the same and he was not speeding.

It then does not follow that the slower speed was the reason you avoided this. Luck as to where each car was when this alleged blow out occurred played a major role here. Had the driver had this closer to you - then the speed and outcome of each car would be irrelevant and the investigation would focus on when brakes hit and overall state of the offending vehicle - especially the state of the tyres.




Dusty is alluding to the "sliding doors nature of Chance, Fate and Kismet". Had he closed the gate - he would have been in the wrong place at the wrong time and we would be missing his valued input here.

You happened to be very lucky and each driver in your incident was in the "right place at the time" . One second earlier or later.. or it occurring just as you passed would have had a very different outcome and we would be then missing your valued input here.

_________________
If you want to get to heaven - you have to raise a little hell!

Smilies are contagious
They are just like the flu
We use our smilies on YOU today
Now Good Causes are smiling too!

KEEP SMILING
It makes folk wonder just what you REALLY got up to last night!

Smily to penny.. penny to pound
safespeed prospers-smiles all round! !
But the real message? SMILE.. GO ON ! DO IT! and the world will smile with you!
Enjoy life! You only have the one bite at it.

Exactly.. it's COAST application which determines judgement and safest speeds here. It may well be that the driver will take account of all this and drive into the curve at a very appropriate safe speed for the condition . which may be much less than 40 mph advisory.

It's why the focus of road safty should not be on speed... speed .. speed and cameras..

but COAST.. COAST.. COAST and lots of nice policemen

_________________
If you want to get to heaven - you have to raise a little hell!

Smilies are contagious
They are just like the flu
We use our smilies on YOU today
Now Good Causes are smiling too!

KEEP SMILING
It makes folk wonder just what you REALLY got up to last night!

Smily to penny.. penny to pound
safespeed prospers-smiles all round! !
But the real message? SMILE.. GO ON ! DO IT! and the world will smile with you!
Enjoy life! You only have the one bite at it.

So, you say that there are speed limits which are too low, but then you say that it would be safer if people didn't exceed them. Surely that means that you don't think the speed limits are too low after all?

The question I was trying to ask was this. Do you think that a speed limit reduction can ever make a road less safe than it was before? And if not, why don't we just make every speed limit 10mph, or even lower?


There are so many things wrong with that that I don't really know where to start. Firstly, speed limits are not supposed to be used to slow people down for bends and other one-off hazards. Would you like to see a separate speed limit for every single bend, dip in the road and junction in the country?

Secondly, the idea that slowing down for a bend a quarter of a mile in advance is "safer" is ludicrous. But you clearly think it's great, so again, would you like to see that for every bend, dip in the road and junction in the country?

Thirdly, you say "if people obeyed the speed limit there, we'd have no speeding", as if that's some sort of benefit. It's not, it's just stating the obvious. I also dispute the other "benefits" that you list. There's nothing calm about a load of zombified people being forced to travel far slower than they need to, and I think it would lead to more tailgating rather than less. The way to get rid of tailgating is not to have the stupidly low speed limit at all; as soon as you introduce such a limit, you get a mixture of people who still travel at NSL (because they know it's still safe), people who travel at 35-45 because they're scared of cameras, and the belligerent sanctimonious troublemakers who travel at 40.000 because they think "Oh great, it's another low speed limit which gives me an opportunity to be self-righteous towards those who wish to go at a reasonable speed".

Most importantly though, I very much doubt that having that speed limit will reduce accidents on the bend, because (for a start) the bend is not identified as a particular hazard. It's far better to leave the speed limit as it is, put a sign up before the bend warning of its presence, maybe have one of those advisory "max speed" signs, have plenty of chevrons, and maybe even try to engineer out the bend if it's so dangerous. Simply putting in a stupidly low, patronising speed limit for a quarter of a mile before it is not going to help, especially since these days there are so many stupidly low speed limits (without any hazards) that people won't think "It's a low speed limit so there must be a hazard ahead", they'll just think "Oh look, another pointlessly low speed limit so that they can catch us speeding".

Speed limits are being horrifically overused these days, and that's just one more example. If you know there's a bend there, and you know how to take it safely, you don't need to travel at 40mph for ages beforehand, as any half-decent driver will tell you. Treating all drivers like underskilled idiots just because a very small percentage can't take a bend properly is not the answer, and I don't see why anyone but car-haters, control freaks and the misguided would be so keen on such an approach.

_________________
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)

In answer to part (a), possibly - but it's the fools who ignore the new limit who cause the danger, not the speed limit itself.
In answer to part (b), it's because there is a balance between mobility and risk. ironically, i have previously suggested that if you hard limited all vehicles to 10mph, you would see a massive reduction in fatal accidents (probably greater than 90%)



No, only where people clearly aren't paying heed to the hazard and crashing.



Of course it's a benefit! On your terms, the SCPs would go out of business, there would be no fine revenue from cameras, etc. On my terms, it would make for a far more consistent and predictable road environment.



I think you are an angry person (do you drive a Vectra? ) sho has a real issue with anyone who simply wants to remain within the road traffic laws, particularly if you are somehow impeded by that decision. When you encounter these 'self righteous troublemakers' do you sit 2 inches off their bumper, flashing them, and then blat past them in a cloud of diesel smoke while giving them the middle finger? I get the feeling that you're one of these drivers, who is motivated by selfishness and the desire to get from A to B as quickly as possible whilst disregarding anyone else who has different beliefs on how to drive correctly.



FYI the bend had all of these features (except engineering work) BEFORE the speed limit reduction. It obviously didn't work. The bend in question would not be possible to re-engineer given the location.



I'll agree, that once you know of a fixed hazard, you become accustomed to dealing with it. It's those who DON'T know about these hazards that need dealing with. I'm sorry if you feel so inconvenienced by that, and the extra 10 seconds it added onto your journey time.

Of course. But it doesn't mean you can exceed them.[/quote]




Driving behind a cyclist can make the cyclist feel uncomfortable .. In any case most of us on bicycles are travelling faster than 10 mph. Thus you would see high volume cyclists .. and MORE accidents between cyclist/cyclist

By the way. some of these can be fatal if you fall off the "wrong way"



Accidents can happen anywhere and everywhere,Martin. Plenty more occur in the home and garden too. You would be amazed at how many "domestic kitchen/trips in garden" actually end up in A&E

Most can be avoided if people are vigilant all the time.. but sadly human beings are not perfect in this.

As for reading the curves . we are still back to COAST and still back to reading the signs, marking and position of other road users as these tell us plenty about the situation ahead of us. We are still back to COAST training and encouraging more to at least have an IAM assessment.





Only they know folk will still blip over and this is where most of the revenue comes from. The split second blippers who are safe but marginally above. They fail to nail the dangerous blatters and the uninsured illegals out there in all reality.

I have concentrated on two local newspapers with Manchester and Bolton both being typical examples of large city and market town. There is a tragedy reported almost daily down there and the bulk (85%) are hit/runs involving yobs and other illegals.

Few seem to be caught though :furious" because they burn out the cars to destroy any evidence. I think GMP do know who they are to be fair .. but cannot get the evidence to convict.



One of my sisters drives one such vehicle. (a sporty one - actually it's quite a surprisingly pleasant vehicle and she's a very steady IAM driver too) (She also has ... some .. err.. racier cars in her garage down there and we store a couple up here for her too. )

Have not come across a diesel which belches out smoke apart from urban buses either

But driving to the road condition is courtesy and you CAN FAIL a driving test by driving too far below the limit just the same as the rubric is about driving to conditions and in harmony with the rest of the road using worlde. (and COAST of course - which does mean sticking to the two second rule and keeping a courteous and safely led space and time so's you can keep it safe at all times




Are we talking about the one on the Cat and Fiddle road

I think it's a 50 mph limit but has an "advisory on one curve".. It's either that one or the one on the road heading down to Staffs .. thinking about where you hail from






But they DO if they are taught to COAST properly. We all meet "unfamiliar" each day and we even come across "odd behaving muppets" on the roads we think we can do "blindfold on auto-pilot" too..

Road safety should not be focussed on speed. It should be focussed on applying COAST .. which will actually guide to right speed for condition and more than likely be fairly close match to the lolly sign anyway in most urban and even rural cases

_________________
If you want to get to heaven - you have to raise a little hell!

Smilies are contagious
They are just like the flu
We use our smilies on YOU today
Now Good Causes are smiling too!

KEEP SMILING
It makes folk wonder just what you REALLY got up to last night!

Smily to penny.. penny to pound
safespeed prospers-smiles all round! !
But the real message? SMILE.. GO ON ! DO IT! and the world will smile with you!
Enjoy life! You only have the one bite at it.

Well there you go.

People who don't like breaking the law are "belligerent sanctimonious troublemakers " according to bombus.

No doubt he would say the same to cyclists who choose not to cycle through red lights, also branding them "belligerent sanctimonious troublemakers".

If travelling at 10mph is so great and so much safer than going faster, why don't you do it all the time? Surely your mobility isn't more important than people's lives?


Yeah yeah. You're talking absolute shit, as I think you know. I have never once done what you describe to anyone, for any reason. I have no problem with anyone who wishes to stay within the law. I have no problem with anyone who obeys speed limits, and with well-set speed limits, many (including me) are likely to obey them. I just pointed out that with a stupidly low limit like the one that you described, most people who obey it are likely to be either scared of cameras or (in a small percentage of cases) self-righteous, holier-than-thou types. Because, sadly, there are those who are obsessively self-righteous, and are preoccupied with impeding and frustrating others more than they are with anything else, and the more that I read of your posts, the more I think that you are probably one of them. (Because of that, I expect you to pretend that you've never encountered such people, even though most others here have.)

These people get a kick out of controlling others, and they like nothing better than to drive at 35-40 in a 60, not pull over even when they've got a huge queue behind them, and flash at anyone who is "impatient" enough to overtake them. So when there's an unreasonable 40 limit which should be a 60, they think "Oh good, now 'the law' has given me an excuse to be a sanctimonious tosser towards people who quite legitimately wish to go between 40 and 60". They (and you) attempt to wind people up on the roads by deliberately frustrating them, and now you're trying to wind people (like RobinXe and me) up on this forum as well. I manage very well not to rise to these people's idiocy on the road (I just calmly overtake them as soon as it's safe, and ignore any silly flashing or gestures that result, sometimes chuckling to myself that they're so pathetic), and I'm not going to rise to your nonsense here either.

(Besides, I'd be a hypocrite if I "had an issue with anyone who simply wants to remain within the road traffic laws", since I obey most long-standing 30 and 40 limits, and I obey and expect others (without being self-righteous towards them) to obey all sensible road traffic laws, which is most of them. But then you know that, and you're just making infantile allegations to try to divert from the fact that you can't defend your beloved low speed limits and cameras. You seem to become more and more like a cycling troll every day. I suppose that when someone insists on being irrational about something such as cameras, and is unable to admit that they're wrong, it eventually takes its toll on them in all sorts of ways. They start being unreasonable all the time, rather than just when they're talking about cameras. Sad really.)


So in that case a stupidly low speed limit MUST be the answer.


Well I'm glad you're going to be driving at 10mph everywhere from now on, to make sure that you're "safer" than if you drive at a higher speed. And if you don't, then it's obviously because you're too impatient and you're more worried about being inconvenienced than you are about saving people's lives (especially the children's). And you'll have shown once again that camera advocates never practise what they preach.

Do you have anything to say which isn't sanctimonious drivel, before I stop reading your posts for good?

_________________
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)

I didn't say that, and I have clarified it above for the car-hating trolls who like to pretend to misunderstand people as part of their arsenal of dishonest debating techniques. Just because some people who travel at 40 in a stupidly low 40 limit are sanctimonious (like you, no doubt), it doesn't mean all of them are; in fact, thankfully, very few people are like you. People who don't like breaking the law are fine. People who are constantly self-righteous towards other drivers are tw@ts who cause constant misery and shouldn't be entitled to drive at all.

You're another person who doesn't practise what they preach. If you hate cars so much, why don't you cycle and take the bus everywhere like a good little left-winger, instead of coming on here, trolling, deliberately misrepresenting people, ducking awkward questions, lying about hating cars, and all the other irritating things that you constantly do? You're a lying hypocrite of the highest order and I wish you'd get lost. Thank goodness I can't see your posts, and it gives me real pleasure whenever I see that you've posted and it's been blocked (unfortunately your last post was displayed in the preview, but just as well since you'd lied about me).

_________________
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)

Pretty much confirms what I thought - you are an angry person. I do hope you don't let your anger take the better of you when you're behind the wheel. I can't be bothered replying to your message because frankly we're not getting anywhere fast, nor are we going to.

I think that last post is a candidate for ad-hominem if there ever was one! You should be banned under rule 11! However, you probably won't be, as you're a camera hater who contributes to the organisation. Hypocrisy, anyone?

It was unforseeable by me!

(as was the blowout incident for you!)

So I stand by my argument!

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