Safe Speed Forums

Dear Mr Fitzpatrick,

Though I was already dimly aware of the government's plans to "harmonise" (we all know which way...) rural speed limits, I am deeply concerned by the plans you are apparently championing (as reported in various papers today) to reduce the National Speed Limit on all rural routes to 50 mph. I am also surprised that you are considering a move that will make many people (myself and everyone I have talked about this to today) reject Labour at the ballot box in perpetuity.

I can understand that a simple analysis makes one think that this will make road transport safer and greener, but you and I know (if you're on top of your brief, as I'm sure you are) that this is simply not true.

1. Modern cars are far safer than they were when the 60 mph NSL was brought in. Go and find and drive your first car again; you'll see what I mean. Drum brakes, crossply tyres, no ABS, no ESP, no airbags, no passenger safety belts etc...
2. It is simply not true to say that across the board modern cars are more economical at 50 as opposed to 60mph. Modern diesels in particular are more economical at higher speeds.
3. Has anyone bothered working out the economic impact this will have in the middle of a recession? I run a service company with a predefined radius of operation. If this measure is introduced, there can be nothing for it but to shrink that radius. I will probably then let one of my ten staff go. I'm sure I'm not the only employer who will do this.
4. Bad speed limits get ignored. When a limit gets lowered below the speed where a significant proportion of drivers will break it at their natural pace, people start ignoring the limit. I could name a road in West Dorset which went from NSL to 30, then when the powers that be realised how daft this was it went up to 40. I assure you that people drive slower now than they did when it was a 30 limit. This is why the 85th percentile method of setting limits works so well.
5. As you are well aware, speed is far down the list of accident causation factors. Only 6% are directly caused by exceeding the speed limit; the frequently wheeled out 1/3 stat includes all accidents where speed was a contributory factor, and by definition they wouldn't be prevented by a drop in the limit. I refer you to the DfT accidents stats here (about page 42 if I remember rightly). Far more are caused by various factors related to bad observation at junctions.

So if you really have a missionary zeal to save lives, and don't just want to spoil drivers' fun, I urge you to use a limited road safety budget in a way that will actually save lives. You can't legislate to make drivers look more carefully at junctions, but you can invest in making junctions and roads safer, with far more effect than waving a crude legislative stick at them. I commend a book called "Road Accidents: Prevent or Punish" by Prof JJ Leeming to you. It may be 40 years old, but it makes more sense than anything else I've read on the subject. I hasten to add that it has recently been reprinted.

Yours sincerely

Johnny

Going to have to disagree with everyone here. I am actually in support of this (read the entire post before angry replying).

We can say lower speed for the same risk promotes inattention and the accident rate will go up, its easy for the Government to say "Prove it". Make the best out of this and use it as an experiment to show that a lower speed limit won't necessarily bring down the accident rate and we can then use this data to highlight inattention. So let them change it to 50mph until it backfires and then we have real life data against the cameras

No, and I don't believe anyone has ever suggested that you should when going at the limit.

Going to have to disagree with everyone here. I am actually in support of this (read the entire post before angry replying).

We can say lower speed for the same risk promotes inattention and the accident rate will go up, its easy for the Government to say "Prove it". Make the best out of this and use it as an experiment to show that a lower speed limit won't necessarily bring down the accident rate and we can then use this data to highlight inattention. So let them change it to 50mph until it backfires and then we have real life data against the cameras

Going to have to disagree with everyone here. I am actually in support of this (read the entire post before angry replying).

We can say lower speed for the same risk promotes inattention and the accident rate will go up, its easy for the Government to say "Prove it". Make the best out of this and use it as an experiment to show that a lower speed limit won't necessarily bring down the accident rate and we can then use this data to highlight inattention. So let them change it to 50mph until it backfires and then we have real life data against the cameras

.....Warwickshire has already cut many main roads to 50MPH despite police objections.

Oh come on.

We all know that this is nothing to do with road safety policy. It is about having an excuse to roll out ANPR technology nationwide to track our every movement.

Started yesterday am, now on 600 signatures...

EDIT: Now on 700, just over an hour later.

1051 now

Dear Johnny

Thank you so much for you e-mail. I entirely oppose the proposal of reducing the national speed limit to 50mph. It is a ludicrous idea and yet another blow to rural life. I think this is more proof that the Labour government does not understand the countryside and why we need a change. Should you be willing to set up a campaign I would happily support it in any way I can.

With all best wishes.

Yours sincerely,

Annunziata