Safe Speed Forums

And the death and injury rates were astronomical...

And? Do you think we would return to that astronomical rate if the limits reverted back to where they were?

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

Todays reduced KSI's are probaly more down to safer cars and faster medical attention than safer roads. The standard of driving is far worse now but people have better chance of surviving from their inept driving, seat belts were rarely worn until the eighties when they became law.

_________________
My views do not represent Safespeed but those of a driver who has driven for 39 yrs, in all conditions, at all times of the day & night on every type of road and covered well over a million miles, so knows a bit about what makes for safety on the road,what is really dangerous and needs to be observed when driving and quite frankly, the speedo is way down on my list of things to observe to negotiate Britain's roads safely, but I don't expect some fool who sits behind a desk all day to appreciate that.

If they were reverted back tomorrow I think it would increase KSI rates, yes.

Wait a minute, are you actually answering yes to my question of would we “return to that astronomical rate"?
Wouldn't that be dismissing the huge advances made in road safety in that time?

If you're trying to be slippery and answering yes when you actually meant "no, but I think it would increase, but not back to that astronomical rate", then I have to ask why you think that, especially when considering the even more substantial role of fatigue. Do you think the issue of fatigue would likely have has gotten worse with the lower limit on these roads?

Wouldn't you at least agree that raising the limit on these safest roads (especially out of peak hours) would displace some traffic from the less safe slower roads, therefore having an overall safety benefit?

All in, do you really still think raising the limit back on what were these fastest roads is still a bad idea? If so why?

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

Hmmmmm

I would agree that they are - to skilled drivers.
Sadly, one only has to read the many references in this thread, and many others, to realise that the vast majority of drivers are merely competent.
It is a sad fact that people who drive advanced cars, generally see themselves, by extension, as advanced drivers. In 15 years of assessing company car drivers I find that, in the overwhelming majority of cases, the quality of the driver is inversely proportional to the quality of the car.
I can further back that up with a 20-year career as a frontline firefighter, with experience of around 700 RTC's, including motorway incidents.

A number of points arise on this thread:

'Low' speed of Police or Highways Agency vehicles on the motorway. The Golden Rule that 'You never know what another driver's difficulties or intentions are' applies here: It is highly likely that these vehicles may have been deployed to search for reported debris, a pedestrian or an animal on the carriageway: it happens all the time. If they are doing 70, they may not be able to fulfill the deployment. I once attended a fatality where a driver was decapitated at over 80mph by a piece of metal on the carriageway being thrown up by the vehicle in front and slicing through his windscreen - and his neck. The cause of death was probably his own, due to tailgating at speed.

Drivers tailing Police or HATO's at 50 or so will often be doing so out of sheer ignorance. Daily I deal with 'experienced' 50k miles-a-year drivers who do not understand our seriously simple speed limit systems. Only yesterday I was assessing a Regional Sales Director for a major dealership (the one that sells cars whose indicators don't work...) who had no idea what the speed limit was on the rural single carriageway road we were on "because he hadn't seen any signs for a while". We were in a 7 series....

That old chestnut of the 'slow' lane: on a motorway in the UK, for cars, unless there are signs to the contrary:
lane 1 = 70mph, lane 2 = 70 mph, lane 3 = 70 mph.
Which is the 'slow' one?

A stretch of 'B' road (downgraded from 'A' to encourage more traffic to use the adjacent and parallel motorway) nearly 5 miles long on my old fire station ground had an annual death rate of around two people, usually vehicle occupants: there were few pedestrians or cyclists as it was too dangerous for them. It was a 'fast' and 'interesting' open road, so most drivers interpreted the NSL 60 to mean 70 or more, and there was a huge outcry locally when the speed limit was reduced to 50mph. Result? For the first four years following the change, we had to deal with only one fatality: a man who was 'testing' a car he had just bought, and lost control.

Good drivers just drive

I would normally defer to your "L" plate status on here but I feel that I must make an exception on this occasion.

Seldom have I seen a post which makes such stereotypical generalisations about certain cars and their drivers.




If you do your work as a driving assessor with these preconceived ideas then your outcomes are hardly likely to be unbiased and will be of suspect value. Do you really believe the statements above or were you just being amusingly provocative?

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

I'm interested in how they downgraded that particular road from an A to a B. Can you enlighten please? I wasn't aware that a council can simply "relabel" a road!

_________________
My views do not represent Safespeed but those of a driver who has driven for 39 yrs, in all conditions, at all times of the day & night on every type of road and covered well over a million miles, so knows a bit about what makes for safety on the road,what is really dangerous and needs to be observed when driving and quite frankly, the speedo is way down on my list of things to observe to negotiate Britain's roads safely, but I don't expect some fool who sits behind a desk all day to appreciate that.

I find it VERY hard to believe that simply reducing the speed limit from 60MPH to 50MPH alone, reduced the A/100mvkm for that particular stretch of road by a staggering 87.5 %!!!!

_________________
My views do not represent Safespeed but those of a driver who has driven for 39 yrs, in all conditions, at all times of the day & night on every type of road and covered well over a million miles, so knows a bit about what makes for safety on the road,what is really dangerous and needs to be observed when driving and quite frankly, the speedo is way down on my list of things to observe to negotiate Britain's roads safely, but I don't expect some fool who sits behind a desk all day to appreciate that.

The KSI reduction may well have happened, but don't be fooled into thinking it had anything to do with a reduction of speed limit.

It is well known that pro-camera types happily capitalise on a statistical aberration called Regression To The Mean (RTTM). This is where they set the reference benchmark at a time where there was an unusually elevated rate of accidents, knowing full well the accident rate will extremely likely fall again no matter what treatment they apply (even if they didn't do anything at all).

Then there is the possibility of other treatments applied to that stretch of road which could have been effective in making it safer (sightlines, visibility, road markings, junction layout, tree removal etc).

Of course, it is also possible that the KSI reduction was simply due to the displacement caused by the unfair and politically driven limit reduction. This is dangerous practice because it devalues the meaning of that speed limit and causes further disrespect of limits in general.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

I had anticipated the responses my previous post drew.


The answer is 'yes' and 'yes'!

Yes : The statements I made are borne out of 15 years of daily assessment in the UK, Europe, North America and the Middle East. Bearing in mind that my daily task is to open-mindedly assess the ability, or otherwise, of the driver I am with, I have to pay extremely close attention to the road conditions and traffic around us, in addition to my driver's conduct, ability and responses to what is happening. It involves planning ahead of whatever the driver will do and second-guessing his or her reactions to it. This requires an incisive assessment of the vehicles around us at any moment, a high degree of perception of the drivers and what they are doing, and a good memory of situations encountered, backed up by continuous digital visual and dynamic recording of activity within and without the vehicle, and of course, written notes. No other road user, including the Traffic Police, pays such close attention to the detail of what is happening on the road system day in and day out.
Drivers who do a very high mileage, perhaps as sales reps or similar, think that they 'have the picture' but in the case of myself and other similar trainers, this is actually backed up with hard evidence.
It may appear to be 'trotting out a stereotype', but one tires of debriefs with drivers where reference has constantly to be made to the same situations where the same problems have arisen due to drivers doing or not doing the same things, and yes, the same vehicle makes tend to appear and reappear in given circumstances.
Drivers of higher-end luxury cars, who perhaps have more important things to think about than merely driving, tend to be the very ones who, more than most, tend to fail to signal when needed, who sit on the footbrake at ATC's because applying the handbrake is too much effort, fail to check blind spots, use foglights in broad daylight, tailgate aggressively at high speeds, rely on sheer power and electronic gadgetry to get them out of trouble, and a host of other items besides. It is not surprising that certain makes of car tend to come to the fore more than others. People with a more casual approach to the subject would call that stereotyping.
The 7 series referred to was not by the same manufacturer that the client worked for.

....and 'yes' - it is great fun to be amusingly provocative!

Good drivers just drive

As it happens, I am not pro-camera, being more in favour of drivers taking responsibility for maintaining and improving their own standards, and of improved traffic policing for events where they don't. However, the oddity about this stretch of road was that nothing at all changed, other than the reduction in the speed limit. The casualty and collision figures had remained more or less constant for around twelve years, with two people on average losing their life each year. Reducing the limit to 50 had the noticeable effect that drivers were now tending to do what was the previous NSL of 60, rather than the 70 or more prior to that. Drivers will always try to do a percentage over the posted limit, usually around 10-15 mph. It could by no means be a statistical aberration, because as a FireFighter on the ground, I and my colleagues began to enjoy a new era of relative calm on not only that, but surrounding roads as well. One death in four years was a great step forward.
The reduction in the speed limit came about after pressure from residents who lived along the road who tired of being unable to access or leave their driveways in safety, of being unable to cross the road, and of the constant noise developed by vehicles travelling at motorway speeds on a NSL single carriageway. The physical features of the road remained unchanged.

Good drivers just drive

I was unaware that roads could have their speeds dropped so readily 19 years ago! I thought it was only the Labour Government that brought in the sudden drop in road speeds due to the wish of residents! Why downgrade it from an A road to a B road, how would that cause less people to use it? How much diid the A/100mvkm drop in those four years, I wonder?

_________________
My views do not represent Safespeed but those of a driver who has driven for 39 yrs, in all conditions, at all times of the day & night on every type of road and covered well over a million miles, so knows a bit about what makes for safety on the road,what is really dangerous and needs to be observed when driving and quite frankly, the speedo is way down on my list of things to observe to negotiate Britain's roads safely, but I don't expect some fool who sits behind a desk all day to appreciate that.

Sea Road South in Bridport, Dorset went from to about twenty years ago, then back to which it remains.

Really? On that road or roads in general? What's that based on?

Does this mean the speed limit is now set incorrectly? If so, aren't we creating frustration leading to bad overtaking manoeuvres, or at the very least: disrespect for speed limits?


Ah, could these be NIMBYs who've moved in knowing what it was like, then asking for things to change once they got in? I guess I can't blame them for trying.
Then again, it is possible the reduction in those locations are justified on the grounds of safety, so I couldn't argue without seeing it for myself. However, such reductions should never be done to push drivers away to use other roads.
Pull, but don't push!

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

One interesting piece of evidence to consider might also be the previous collision records of the people which you assess. If the collision rate per mile of the high mileage drivers is lower than the general population then despite their claimed failings, they may actually be safer than the general public. Experience is a very valuable thing despite the potential for breeding bad habits. Are you called in after an accident or is your work to comply with Driving at Work requirements?

The purpose of assessment is, presumably, increasing safety on the roads. I am a bit concerned that you seem to focus on process (e.g. applying handbrake at lights) rather than outcomes (i.e. how safe are they overall).

Similarly to the above, do the drivers of the advanced cars actually have more incidents than, say, Micra drivers? This would be actual evidence rather than subjective opinion.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

Although it's gone rather offtopic, I do note a few interesting things.

An automatic assumption that the reduced figures are by RTTM (something I am not convinced of anyway, even though I have read the meaning and figures behind it), and that people who are complaining have moved in and are nimbys.

I cannot help but think arguments like that don't help the points SS try to get across.

Course, on the flipside, we don't actually have any verification of what driver trainer does, nor has the road being discussed been named. So the figures cannot be checked.

_________________
If you think everyone else around you is driving badly, perhaps it's time to examine your own driving.

Our underlying points are that:

- people should use their critical faculties to question what they are being told rather than just believing "spin" from vested interests.
- speed limits are being set for reasons other then road safety.

If the Government came straight out and said "we set limits based on locally based complaints and not safety" then at least we would all know where we stand. Unfortunately, they hang it all on flawed statistics.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

These weren't automatic assumptions, merely highlights of potential effects: "Ah, could these be..."


That's your opinion; I of course differ. The RTTM argument is what initially turned me from being pro-camera.


Interesting. Why aren't you convinced of the RTTM argument, doesn't it make sense?

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

Malcolmw, I know all that, I have read a LOT of this site. I'm not just another that dived into the forum.



I'd best make clear my stance here - I am most definatly not pro camera, never have been. While very occasionally they might have uses, they are steadily replacing police which can actually get bad driving. That argument has been said over and over, but it's what i have always thought and I figure I had best make it clear.



Fair enough, I got the wrong impression from the post.



Well, since it's gone rabidly OT anyway, I might as well go the whole hog.

I have read about RTTM, not only on this site but a few others, so understand it. I am just not convinced it is applicable for the stats as much as SS makes out. I am active on a few forums, and a very reoccuring theme is that people bend statistics to mean what they want.

And if statistics do not agree with what they say, they find ways to discredit them.

Before I get jumped by regular members, I am not calling SS a farce, or deliberatly made up.

I have veiwed very many points of view. Some from websites/people that agree with SS, and some that disagree.

What always dissapoints me is that very often if there is differing opinion character (or website, if you get what I mean) assination often comes into play, from both sides.

Hence why I don't say where I get my opposing views from. More often than not it turns into 'Well they are wrong because they think...'.

And it just turns into the old statistic bending, and when that cannot be done any longer, simply discrediting them. Not knowing the actual truth, I find I cannot fully trust either source and then all I have to go on is my own (potentially very flawed) opinions.

I might as well take the chance to put across my view. Sorry, this is going to get boring.

Initially, I was for removing speed limits. After a bit of reading, maybe it might work. But then, thanks to an individual we shall not name, I was converted the other way. I do not mean speed cameras, but speed limits.

Although I think the majority are too low, especially the motorway (70? We have moved on since then surely??), but in whole they should stay.

It's thanks to certain people thinking they are safe at high speeds. Even if they have taken advanced courses, and might have had accidents, or perhaps just the boy racers, surely giving them a free reign would be a bad idea? Personally, I shudder at the thought. If you talk to some of these people, they are genuinely convinced they can drive at such speeds (i.e. speeds that are in actual fact too fast for conditions, road type etc).

Then there is the ones that just don't care, and will welcome the chance to drive at inappropriate speed and get no points.

That's one very unfortunate problem SS has. However well intended, it's always going to attract those that just want to go as fast as they can. Still, if they end up learning a bit more about driving safety that can only be good. But I daresay many just add their voice, and don't read into it.

So to sum up -

I do think that a lot of speed limits are too low.

While I think cameras have their place, it has loooooong been overstepped.

There should be far more police about, to crack down on 'bad' driving.

I do not support the removal of speed limits.


I do see a lot of safety advice given on SS, and some sensible ideas (as well as some not ). Though I must say, if I see more untruths about you know what, I shall probably be leaving, it's a bit much to bear, I'm sure you understand after knowing what I do!

And that is whats most damaging to SS, people like that claiming they are safe and using your reasoning.

Sorry for the lonng, boring post, but then you did ask

_________________
If you think everyone else around you is driving badly, perhaps it's time to examine your own driving.