jomukuk wrote:
I think this thread misses the point.
The reduction in speed limits has its root not in safety but in traffic reduction.
Plus, you can go-on about the 85th percentile to your hearts content, most people just think "less injury at low speeds"
I agree that the overall 'speed kills' and many other current policies are very likely to be there to reduce traffic and vehicles. There was an EU policy that stated that by 2010 I think it was that there would be a 25% reduction in UK traffic !
The interesting 'go slower' makes it 'safer' sound logical and sounds plausible but it a far bigger and more complex issue than this very simple 'policy' propaganda. By making the public believe that road safety is this simple helps carry the 'we must all go more slowly and then there will be less deaths' - it is wrong and seriously morally appalling, not to say that the facts speak for themselves.
This is particularly troubling as it is not public opinion that should be deciding on road safety. It is proper and intelligent research carried out by government and the results shown acted upon in the best ability of the government in an unbiased manner to try to ensure the best results.
No one would like to trust a non medical person / neighbour to operate on them !
jomukuk wrote:
It's hard to argue that if the vehicles are traveling slower then there will be more time to avoid problems and less injury if they hit anyone.
No it's not.
But it maybe difficult for the 'average chap/ess' who has not looked or studied road safety in detail to fully appreciate, all the facts and figures.
The logic of go slow go safe and give yourself greater time to react, is fine
except if one is driving (riding) appropriately in the first place then the potential hazard/s that are presented have already been allowed for.
By understanding what is important and how to encourage drivers / riders to 'do the right thing' int he first place is more basic and more correct than 'go slow and you will be safe' which is flippant and not fundamental enough to give out a proper message and has side effects that can make a driver / rider worse and far worse.
jomukuk wrote:
Most people do not obey 30mph limits, and even less obey 20mph limits: Even when they are justified.
to make drivers try to choose the safest speed, will be very variable on any one road length. It will be influenced by the local environments as they are met. One day will be a different speed to another day very commonly.
Driver's riders have to choose and appropriate speed suitable to the conditions. If driver's rider's are not recognising hazards, that need to be tackled from both angles - why they are not recognising the hazard, and how the hazards can be reduced and made 'clearer' - all needs to be looked at and researched and developed appropriately.
A sign that says 'school' is considered in the mid summer as less important than in the spring or fall. I never have a clear idea when schools are or are not operational, but as soon as I see one child on the street / car, TV news, (etc.) I know they are 'back', but that is only knowledge, not road information. When I drive as soon as you see people on the roads/ pavements (etc) then you slow appropriately even more than you have already for the urban (semi-orban) area already. Getting people to know when they need to apply a slower for action speed and increase obs ability is crucial to help road safety. That must be developed and encouraged. As soon as that specific hazard is passed, a small increase in speed maybe possible, but if still in the general area or specific problem area, speed is kept at a rate that one can stop in the distance that is clear. Once passed however an increase in speed can be applied, again so that one can travel so that stop in the distance clear.
Just 'going slowly' does not make it 'safe' acting and reacting makes it correct. A bored driver going slower than is required lets their mind wander and are less aware or observant - that is highly dangerous.
jomukuk wrote:
The village I live in has just had the speed limit reduced to 30mph, from 40.
The plans for a variable limit, 20 at school open/close times has been halted while assessments are made of the effectiveness of the speed limit reduction. It looks like it will be proceeded with..the average speed of most cars since the limit reduction is 38mph. One van was measured at 67mph, most trucks average 36mph. Looks like the speed cameras are going to be out soon. AND that's with a flashing speed warning sign....around here the 85th percentile would be about 38mph then....
Well the van might have been safe but it sounds too high from your description BUT there was no incident I take it. So a 'proved' got away with and excessive but that alone makes it a piece of bad driving, from the sounds of it, but was it dangerous, possibly. The precise circumstances need to be observed and understood and then assessed. If s/he was just exiting the 40mph (?prior to limit drop) and there was just open fields then it probably was safe but not legal.
If it was in the centre of the 'busy section' with a few people about, and a few side roads and openings - you mention farms and a school then it might have been highly dangerous. But the conditions establish whether at that precise moment it was or wasn't dangerous with the 'likelihood' of potential hazards presenting a action or reaction.
More research would be needed. Local speed limits are being changed from the 'average' suitable limit to potentially lower than necessarily slower limits. See the conditions driving is being replaced with - this speed is appropriate when it is busy, but in fact that is wrong, as often when busy 10 or 5mh might be correct. Making drivers / riders go slower than necessary is frustrating and makes a mockery of the limit. All road users have to be responsible, and all drivers and riders need to drive or ride at appropriate speeds to conditions. When danger areas present, a slower speed is immediately necessary, as that hazard increases, continuing to slow is appropriate, when they subside or go then an increase in speed is appropriate.
All reasons for hazard areas need to be researched and checked. I hear of public reporting problems and told until someone dies then we will look at it. That is appalling. We need more money spent on research and development. But we do not need a society that is overly protected and that must be considered. There is an underlying and very worrying building fear of all traffic instilled into 'the public'. Well a healthy respect and caution is good. We all need to 'get on' be courteous and behave as well as possible at all times.
Modern aids and better engineering may help a specific road user route, and resources are needed for this.
Improving every road users ability to understand potential hazards and awareness of dangers is good, making each understand each others expectations and behaviour manners helps society interact.
perception of hazards can be improved - as can awareness of danger.
Speed alone is not the real issue, but awareness and observations that govern chosen speeds.
jomukuk wrote:
One school, in the middle of the village. Two farms, adjacent to the school. One church and one meeting hall. All in a one hundred metre stretch. I think that a 30 limit is justified.
It could be but at 2 in the morning is anything moving outside ? If road users were traveling at a speed appropriate to conditions then at night a 45 mph might be OK but during the day evening at busy times I could imagine 10 being appropriate easily.
I assume you have a school sign, farm sign and maybe a pedestrians in road ahead sign perhaps ? maybe a few concealed driveways ?
The advantage of VAS has helped to remind drivers just what speed they are traveling at and that has shown to help drivers realise that it is too fast for conditions in 'this area', so drivers / riders slow. Good public info films (etc) can also help back this basic driving / riding requirement.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
Members
